The role of landscape in Gogol's poem Dead Souls. Description of nature in N.V. Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls”

840 rub.

Content
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1. PLACE AND ROLE OF N. V. GOGOL’S POEM “DEAD SOULS” IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE.
1. 1 HISTORY OF THE CREATION OF THE POEM
1. 2 GENRE FEATURES OF THE POEM
1. 3 COMPOSITIONAL FEATURES OF THE POEM
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTIONS OF NATURE AS A MEANS OF CHARACTERISTICS OF CHARACTERS OF GOGOL’S POEM “DEAD SOULS”
2. 1 MANILOV
2. 2 BOX
2. 3 NOZDROV
2. 4 SOBAKEVICH
2. 5 PLYUSHKIN
2. 6 CHICHIKS
CONCLUSION
LITERATURE
APPLICATION. DOMINANT MOTIVES IN THE DESCRIPTION OF LANDSCAPES ACCORDING TO THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH LANDLORD

Fragment of work for review

<…>In a word, everything was somehow deserted and good, as neither nature nor art could invent, but as only happens when they are united together...” (P. 127)
These motives of life, movement, development are present only in the description of Plyushkin’s character, who, it would seem, has descended so that further degradation is impossible. But perhaps it is precisely this circumstance - the impossibility of a further fall - that leaves some hope that he will now move in the opposite direction, since nothing can be worse. And the description of the garden is a symbol of the fact that something alive and human remains in the hero’s soul. That is, in this case, the description of the hero’s house and garden is, to some extent, a description of the hero’s character. Everything is in desolation, complete decline - both Plyushkin’s farm and his own life, but before the garden was beautiful, and the hero’s life was filled with meaning, which leaves the slightest hope for revival.
The abundance and splendor of Plyushkin’s neglected garden contrast with the descriptions of Manilov’s stunted and meager garden. Let's compare these two descriptions:
Manilov's Garden Plyushkin's Garden - two or three flower beds
- a vast garden, overgrown and dead - five or six birch trees - a colossal white birch trunk - thin tops
- tremulous domes
overgrown trees - a gazebo with a flat green dome - collapsed railings, a shaky gazebo - the dull bluish color of a pine forest - green thickets illuminated by the sun - the day was either clear or gloomy... - The sun, climbing under a leaf, illuminates it. Many details of the landscape coincide, which in both cases Gogol draws attention to, however, if the dominant motif in the description of Manilov’s garden is incompleteness, incompleteness, unfinishedness, then in the description of Plyushkin’s garden these are the motifs of obsolescence, but at the same time abundance, luxury, gradually transitioning and already in decline.
2. 6 Chichikov
Speaking about the images of landowners in the poem, one cannot ignore the image of its central character, Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov: although this image stands somewhat apart in the poem, it is he who is the central, connecting link. His journey is the engine of the plot. The very fact that Chichikov is constantly in motion distinguishes him from many other heroes of the poem: he moves, and to some extent, develops. And the motifs of nature that accompany it are, first of all, road landscapes: “As soon as the city left, they began to paint, according to our custom, nonsense and game on both sides of the road: hummocks, a spruce forest, low thin bushes of young pines, charred trunks of old trees, wild heather and such nonsense. There were villages stretched out along the cord, the structure similar to old stacked firewood...<…>In a word, the species are known.” (p. 12)
Gogol, even in this short passage, twice emphasizes the ordinariness, the commonness of this Russian landscape, its boredom - “nonsense and game.” This characteristic does not relate to the image of Chichikov, but to the image of Russia through which the hero travels, to the state of affairs in it. The landscapes are boring, the roads are bad - and all this is projected onto the events that take place in the poem: this “nonsense and game” extends not only to nature, but also to the morals that reign in the country, where you can trade living or dead people, souls.
And, despite the fact that the first volume of “Dead Souls,” according to Gogol’s plan, is a description of hell, yet the author, already in this first volume, gives readers and heroes some hope for revival, creating an image of Rus', like a three-bird:
“It seems that an unknown force has taken you on its wing, and you are flying, and everything is flying: miles are flying, merchants are flying towards you on the beams of their wagons, a forest is flying on both sides with dark formations of spruces and pines, with a clumsy knock and the cry of a crow, The whole road flies to God knows where into the disappearing distance, and something terrible is contained in this quick flickering, where the disappearing object does not have time to appear, only the sky above, and the light clouds, and the rushing month alone seem motionless. Eh, three! bird three, who invented you?..”
And this image, this symbolic landscape is correlated with the image of Chichikov, the most ambiguous and contradictory in the poem. Gogol brings to the fore not just a negative hero, but a man who turned all ideas about the real values ​​of this world upside down and placed the “penny” at the center of the universe. On the other hand, it is the image of Chichikov that is the only one that moved from the first volume to the second. And it is with the image of Chichikov, according to most researchers, that the idea of ​​resurrection is connected.
But in the description of this symbolic landscape there are indications of the devilish side of the hero’s nature (darkness, crow’s cry, clouds, terrible flickering), and of other possibilities of his personality, of the possibility of his rebirth (light of the moon, continuity of movement).
Conclusion
When analyzing descriptions of nature and landscapes in Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls”, the following features can be identified.
1. Descriptions of nature and landscapes do not occupy much space in Gogol’s poem (the only exception is the description of Plyushkin’s garden). However, whenever Gogol turns to pictures of nature, they are symbolic in nature.
2. The main function that landscapes and pictures of nature perform in Gogol’s poem is the function of revealing the characters’ characters. Any picture of nature illuminates the figure of each of the landowners in a new way, once again emphasizing those features that already become obvious when describing the appearance, lifestyle, and behavior of the heroes.
3. It is possible to identify the main “dominants” in the characters’ characters, reflected in the descriptions of the nature surrounding them:
Manilov - disorder, laziness, unsuccessful attempts to start some kind of activity; chaos and disorder, lack of will are projected onto the garden, which he strives, but cannot create around his home;
Korobochka - vanity, troublesome economic activity, the desire to obtain maximum benefit are reflected in the landscape surrounding it - a poultry house, a vegetable garden in which only vegetables grow;
Nozdryov - passion, imbalance, rudeness, a tendency to scandals are metaphorically expressed by Gogol with the help of images of hummocks, swamps, unkempt hunting grounds of his estate;
Sobakevich - pragmatism and greed are manifested in the fact that there is no longer nature as such on his estate, he views the forest exclusively as a building material;
Plyushkin is the lowest level of fall, degradation, the loss of almost all human traits, but nevertheless - the presence of a past, prehistory, and as a symbol of this - a huge, neglected, overgrown, but still beautiful garden.
Chichikov - uncertainty, changeability of character (he knows how to adapt to any of his interlocutors); Motifs of road landscapes, flickering, variability, and movement are associated with his image. On the one hand, in the descriptions of nature surrounding his image, Gogol emphasizes the boredom, the ordinariness of the places through which the hero passes, but at the same time the landscape becomes symbolic, prophetic: the flight of a trio of birds over the earth, the stars and the moon, clouds and the sky. All this gives a certain way out into the comic space, takes us away from the earth and opens up new perspectives. In general, both the image of Chichikov and the images of nature accompanying him are dual images, not fully understood, perhaps even by the author himself.
4. It should also be noted that Gogol often uses comparisons in his descriptions, detailed comparisons likening his heroes or natural phenomena to other processes and phenomena. So, Sobakevich looks like a medium-sized bear, and his and his wife’s faces are compared to a pumpkin and a cucumber, respectively; even the description of the light of a cloudy day is likened to the color of a soldier’s uniform. Very often these comparisons point to the fact that Gogol’s heroes themselves lose human traits, become like objects or animals, fall down, degrade.
In general, the images of nature in Gogol’s poem shade and deepen the images of the characters and emphasize the dominant features in their characters.
Literature
Gogol N.V. Dead souls. T. 1. M., 1980. Ed. S. I. Mashinsky and M. B. Khrapchenko
Vinogradov I. A. Gogol - artist and thinker. Christian foundations of worldview. M., 2000
Gukovsky G. A. Realism of Gogol. M., L., 1959
Dokusov A. M. Kachurin M. G. Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls.” M., 1982
Eremina L.I. About the language of artistic prose of N.V. Gogol. M., 1987
Zolotussky I. P. Gogol. M., 1984. P. 235 Mann Yu. V. Gogol’s Poetics. M., 1988

Troyat A. Nikolai Gogol. M., 2004
Shevyrev S.P. The Adventures of Chichikov or Dead Souls. Poem by N. Gogol. Article two // Russian criticism of the 18th-19th centuries. Reader. Comp. V. I. Kuleshov. M., Education, 1978.
Application. Dominant motives in the description of landscapes when characterizing each landowner
Landowner Items of description Color scheme Main motive Manilov Mountain, garden, flower beds, river, bridge, gazebo, distant forest Gray, ashy, bluish, greenish Striving for beauty and orderliness; incompleteness, chaos, wretchedness of the garden Box Poultry yard, vegetable garden (vegetables) Variety, darkness (night, thunderstorm) The desire to benefit, pragmatism combined with vanity. Nozdryov Kennel, the land owned by Nozdryov (forest, hummocks, swamp) Chaos, disorganization (in the absence of a desire for order), disorder. Sobakevich Village (huts), forest Gray, white, brown Pragmatism, no nature, but there is material from which you can benefit (wood for construction) Plyushkin Huge garden: gazebo, forest, birch trees, young shoots, crowns of overgrown trees Golden-green (sun and greenery) Decline, destruction, disappearance of a once beautiful garden. Degradation. Chichikov Road landscapes Variegation 1. Boredom, routine, melancholy, mediocrity;
2. Symbolism of the landscape, movement, development, flight.
Mashinsky S.I. “Dead Souls” by Gogol. M., 1978. P. 11
Voropaev V. A. N. V. Gogol. Life and art. M., 2002. P. 22
Dokusov A. M. Kachurin M. G. Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls.” M., 1982. P. 9
Zolotussky I. P. Gogol. M., 1984. P. 235
Gukovsky G. A. Realism of Gogol. M., Leningrad, 1959. P. 473
Gukovsky G. A. Realism of Gogol. P. 488
Smirnova E. A. Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls”. L., 1987. P. 188
Smirnova E. A. Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls”. P. 156
Gukovsky G. A. Realism of Gogol. P. 475
Voropaev V. A. N. V. Gogol. Life and art. M., 2002. P. 22
Mashinsky S.I. “Dead Souls” by Gogol. P. 22
Dokusov A. M. Kachurin M. G. Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls.” pp. 30-31
Shevyrev S.P. The Adventures of Chichikov or Dead Souls. Poem by N. Gogol. Article two // Russian criticism of the 18th-19th centuries. Reader. Comp. V. I. Kuleshov. M., Education, 1978
Mashinsky S.I. “Dead Souls” by Gogol. pp. 22-23
Gogol N.V. Dead souls. T. 1. M., 1980. Ed. S. I. Mashinsky and M. B. Khrapchenko. P. 19. Hereinafter, quotations from this edition indicating the page number in the text.
Mashinsky S.I. “Dead Souls” by Gogol. P. 30
Vinogradov I. A. Gogol - artist and thinker. Christian foundations of worldview. M., 2000. P. 323
Mashinsky S.I. “Dead Souls” by Gogol. P. 35
Mashinsky S.I. “Dead Souls” by Gogol. P. 40
2

Bibliography

Literature
1.Gogol N.V. Dead Souls. T. 1. M., 1980. Ed. S. I. Mashinsky and M. B. Khrapchenko
2. Vinogradov I. A. Gogol? artist and thinker. Christian foundations of worldview. M., 2000
3. Voropaev V. A. N. V. Gogol. Life and art. M., 2002. P. 22
4. Gukovsky G. A. Realism of Gogol. M., L., 1959
5. Dokusov A. M. Kachurin M. G. Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls.” M., 1982
6.Eryomina L.I. About the language of artistic prose of N.V. Gogol. M., 1987
7. Zolotussky I. P. Gogol. M., 1984. P. 235 Mann Yu. V. Gogol’s Poetics. M., 1988
8. Mashinsky S.I. “Dead Souls” by Gogol. M., 1978. P. 11
9. Smirnova E. A. Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls”. L., 1987. P. 188
10. Troyat A. Nikolai Gogol. M., 2004
11. Shevyrev S.P. The Adventures of Chichikov or Dead Souls. Poem by N. Gogol. Article two // Russian criticism of the 18th-19th centuries. Reader. Comp. V. I. Kuleshov. M., Education, 1978.

Please carefully study the content and fragments of the work. Money for purchased finished works will not be returned due to the fact that the work does not meet your requirements or is unique.

* The category of work is of an evaluative nature in accordance with the qualitative and quantitative parameters of the material provided. This material, neither in its entirety nor any of its parts, is a finished scientific work, final qualifying work, scientific report or other work provided for by the state system of scientific certification or necessary for passing intermediate or final certification. This material is a subjective result of processing, structuring and formatting the information collected by its author and is intended, first of all, to be used as a source for independent preparation of work on this topic.

Goals: to form and improve the skills of analyzing text containing a description of the landscape, determining its role in the work; teach to see and reveal the meaning of the comic and lyrical in the poem; develop skills in constructing your own statement and conducting dialogue; foster the need for meaningful reading. Equipment: portrait of N. IN.

Gogol; illustrations for the poem; handouts for literary workshop; epigraph on the board. And for a long time it was determined for me by the wonderful power to walk hand in hand with my strange heroes, to survey the whole enormous rushing life, to survey it through laughter visible to the world and invisible, unknown to it tears! n. V. Gogol DURING THE CLASSES I.

Organizing time 1. greeting from the teacher 2. Recording the date, topic of the lesson, epigraph in notebook II. Setting goals and objectives for lesson III. Homework check 1. Competition for the best memorization of the passage “Oh, three!

bird-three..." 2.

Statements from students “My thoughts on Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls” using the “press” method IV. Work on the topic of the lesson. Literary workshop Determining the uniqueness of the landscape in excerpts from the poem “Dead Souls” 1) Observation of the passage about the garden on Plyushkin’s estate Card 1 “The old, vast garden stretching behind the house, overlooking the village and then disappearing into the field, overgrown and decayed, seemed one refreshed this vast village and one was quite picturesque in its picturesque desolation. The connected tops of trees growing in freedom lay on the sky horizon like green clouds and irregular, fluttering-leaved domes. A white colossal birch trunk, devoid of a top, broken off by a storm or thunderstorm, rose from this green thicket and rounded in the air, like a regular sparkling marble column; its oblique, pointed break, with which it ended upward instead of a capital, darkened against its snowy whiteness, like a hat or a black bird. The hops, which choked the elderberry, rowan and hazel bushes below and then ran along the top of the entire palisade, finally ran up and entwined half the broken birch.

Having reached the middle of it, it hung down from there and began to cling to the tops of other trees, or it hung in the air, tying its thin, tenacious hooks in rings, easily swayed by the air. In places, green thickets, illuminated by the sun, diverged and showed an unlit depression between them, gaping like a dark mouth; it was all cast in shadow, and faintly flickered in its black depths: a running narrow path, collapsed railings, a swaying gazebo, a hollow, decrepit willow trunk, a gray-haired chapberry, with thick bristles sticking out from behind the willow, withered leaves from the terrible wilderness, tangled and crossed leaves and branches, and, finally, a young maple branch, stretching out its green leaf paws from the side, under one of which, God knows how, the sun suddenly turned it into transparent and fiery, shining wonderfully in this thick darkness. To the side, at the very edge of the garden, several tall aspens, no match for the others, raised huge crows’ nests to their tremulous tops.

Some of them had pulled back and not completely separated branches hanging down along with withered leaves. In a word, everything was as good as neither nature nor art could imagine, but as only happens when they are united together, when, through the piled-up, often useless, work of man, nature passes with its final cutter, lightens the heavy masses, destroys the grossly perceptible correctness and beggarly gaps through which an unhidden, naked plan peeks through, and will give a wonderful warmth to everything that was created in the cold of measured cleanliness and neatness.” Questions and tasks What general impression does the garden make?

name individual areas of the garden. What trees are they made of? Which trees stand out in the garden? Using what visual means are they drawn?

Why does the writer use the word “one” twice when describing the garden? What meaning do the words “freedom”, “ran up”, “ran” take on when you remember who owns this garden? What words contain the idea of ​​the passage? reveal its meaning. Determine the mood of the landscape. How is it created?

Why did Gogol need to paint just such a landscape after describing the depressing appearance of the village and Plyushkin’s house and before meeting the owner himself? What in this landscape prepares you for a meeting with Plyushkin and what does it immediately warn you against? Can this landscape be called lyrical? Why? 2) Observation of the lyrical digression “Rus!

Rus! I see you..." Card 2 "Rus! Rus! I see you, from my wonderful, beautiful distance I see you: poor, scattered and uncomfortable in you; the daring divas of nature, crowned by the daring divas of art, cities with multi-windowed high palaces grown into the cliffs, picture trees and ivy grown into houses, in the noise and eternal dust of waterfalls will not amuse or frighten the eyes; her head will not fall back to look at the boulders of stone endlessly piled up above her and in the heights; the dark arches thrown one upon the other, entangled with grape branches, ivy and countless millions of wild roses, will not flash through them; the eternal lines of shining mountains, rushing into the silver clear skies, will not flash through them in the distance. Everything about you is open, deserted and even; like dots, like icons, your low cities stick out inconspicuously among the plains; nothing will seduce or enchant the eye. but what incomprehensible, secret force attracts you?

Why is your melancholy song, rushing along your entire length and width, from sea to sea, heard and heard incessantly in your ears? What's in it, in this song? What calls, and cries, and grabs your heart? What sounds painfully kiss and strive into the soul and curl around my heart? Rus! what do you want from me? what incomprehensible connection lies between us?

Why are you looking like that, and why has everything in you turned its eyes full of expectation to me?..” Questions and tasks ♦ What visual medium is the main one in depicting the landscape of Rus'?

(Extended comparison) ♦ What lands is Gogol talking about when he mentions “the daring divas of nature, crowned by the daring divas of art”? find evidence that we are talking about Italy in general and in particular about the city of Rome. (“Eternal dust of waterfalls”, “eternal lines of shining mountains”, etc.) ♦ How is Rus' drawn?

name the visual means that paint a picture of Rus'. Why does the writer use negative particles and pronouns so widely? ♦ What impression does the image of Rus' make? What artistic technique is used to achieve this? ♦ What is the overall mood of the passage? What causes it? ♦ Is it possible to find anything in common between the description of Plyushkin’s garden and this lyrical digression, which also contains landscape details?

3) Final conversation ♦ In what other cases is landscape found in the poem? (When describing the estates of landowners; when describing Chichikov’s travels; in the last lyrical digression about the three-bird.) ♦ What is the uniqueness of the landscape in the poem “Dead Souls”?

(The landscape in the poem helps in creating images, emphasizing the main character traits and features of life; it is always lyrical, colored by the author’s feelings.) V.

Virtual help desk Satire is a type of comic (funny) that most mercilessly ridicules human imperfection. Satire expresses the author’s sharply negative attitude towards what is depicted and involves malicious ridicule of the depicted character or phenomenon. Sarcasm is an evil and caustic mockery, the highest degree of irony. Irony is an allegory expressing ridicule; double meaning, when what is said in the process of speech acquires the opposite meaning; ridicule, which contains an assessment of what is being ridiculed. VI. Analytical and exploratory conversation 1.

Expressive reading by the teacher of a lyrical digression about two types of writers (chapter seven, “Happy Traveler...”) 2. Questions and tasks ♦ What types of writers is Gogol talking about? How and why is their fate different? ♦ Which path does Gogol choose for himself? Why?

♦ How does a writer determine the uniqueness of his talent and method? ♦ How is this originality manifested in the lyrical digressions of the poem? VII. Generalization Summing up the lesson, reflection ♦ Did you manage, in addition to the “world-visible laughter,” to see and feel the writer’s “invisible, world-unseen tears” (see epigraph to the lesson)? ♦ Did your attitude towards him change after becoming acquainted with his main work - the poem “Dead Souls”?

♦ What would you like to write about in your essays? VIII. Home building Prepare for a class essay on topics (to choose from): 1) ““Living” and “dead” souls in Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls””; 2) “The image of the homeland and people in Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls””; 3) “the author’s ideal and reality in Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls””; 4) “the role of portrait and everyday details in the depiction of landowners in Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls””; 5) “The future and the present in Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls””; 6) “Genre originality of Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls””; 7) “The image of Chichikov - the “knight of the penny” (“scoundrel and acquirer”)”; 8) “Gogol’s “laughter through tears””; 9) “the role of lyrical digressions in the composition of the poem “Dead Souls””; 10) “The image of a provincial city in Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls”.”

Mehdiev V.G. (Khabarovsk)

The purpose of the article is to analyze the structure-forming details of the landscape in the poem “Dead Souls,” which hint at semantic echoes that go beyond the world of the characters themselves and express their author’s assessment. The landscape images of the work have traditionally (and rightly) been understood in line with Gogol’s characteristic method of typification. Gogol skillfully used his talent to fit whole content “into an infinitely small” space. But the discoveries made in connection with the concepts of “outlook,” “environment,” and “point of view” make it possible to see the nonlinear strategy of Gogol’s landscape.

In the dialogical concept of M.M. According to Bakhtin, “a twofold combination of the world with a person is possible: from within him - as his horizons, and from the outside - as his environment.” The scientist thought that “verbal landscape”, “description of the situation”, “depiction of everyday life”, etc. cannot be considered solely as “moments of the horizon of the acting, incoming consciousness of a person.” An aesthetically significant event occurs where the subject of the image is “turned outside itself, where it exists valuable only in another and for another, is involved in the world, where it does not exist from within itself.”

The theory of the hero’s outlook and environment, created by Bakhtin, in the science of literature was associated with the concept of “point of view.” There is an internal point of view - a first-person narration, where the depicted world fits as closely as possible into the character’s horizons; and an external point of view, giving scope to the author's omniscience, endowing the narrator with a higher consciousness. The external point of view has mobility, through it a multiplicity of perception and emotional and semantic assessment of the subject is achieved. N.D. Tamarchenko wrote that “the point of view in a literary work is the position of the “observer” (narrator, narrator, character) in the depicted world.” Point of view, “on the one hand, determines his horizons - both in terms of “volume,” “and in terms of assessing what is perceived; on the other hand, it expresses the author’s assessment of this subject and his outlook.” Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that the boundaries passing between unequal points of view in the narrative indicate certain moving, threshold meanings determined by the value position of observers.

The borderline meanings of the landscape in “Dead Souls” can be understood in the context of M. Virolainen’s thoughts: “describing this or that area of ​​life, Gogol likes to disrupt the direct connection with it,” “turn to it from the outside.” As a result, “a conflictual interaction arises between the subject of the image and the author’s view of the subject”; “the author’s view violates all boundaries”, “does not allow the phenomenon being described to remain equal to itself.” This position, I think, goes back to the well-known idea of ​​​​M. Bakhtin: “every moment of the work is given to us in the author’s reaction to it.” It “embraces both the subject and the hero’s reaction to it.” The author, according to the philosopher, is endowed with an “excess of vision,” thanks to which he “sees and knows something” that is “fundamentally inaccessible to the heroes.”

Indeed, an ordinary look at the poem “Dead Souls” reveals, first of all, details that have a typical meaning. In the creation of paintings of the provincial city, the life of provincial landowners, an emphasis on showing the dual unity of external and internal is noticeable. But the semantics of landscape is not limited to the typing function: Gogol presents the landscape from points of view bordering each other. About the hotel in the county town where Chichikov stayed, it is said that it belonged to a “famous family.” The landscape and the interior associated with it give rise to a feeling of ordinariness, typicality: this is all around and inside the hotel, but it can be seen everywhere. The formula “here” and “everywhere” includes, in particular, “rooms with cockroaches peeking out like prunes from all corners.” Typicality is expressed not only metaphorically, but sometimes through direct recording of coincidences, abolishing the boundaries between external and internal: “The external façade of the hotel corresponded to its interior<...>» .

Chichikov sees what corresponds to his adventurous plan. In his ideological assessment of the district landscape, he is passive. But the narrative initiative here belongs to the writer. It is the author who acts as the highest authority and forms the value-semantic space of the provincial city. N.V. Gogol seems to follow the character, takes a transpersonal position that coincides “with the position of the given character in terms of spatial characteristics,” but diverges “from it in terms of ideology, phraseology, etc.” . True, if we analyze the fragment in isolation from the context of the work, then the belonging of the evaluative paradigm to the writer is not so obvious. From what does it follow that the subject of perception is not only Chichikov, but also the author?

The fact is that Chichikov's point of view cannot perform a compositional function. She is devoid of narrative memory: she grasps what meets her situational interests. The author’s evaluative position is a completely different matter. With the help of verbal details of the landscape and interior, a structural whole is created not only of individual episodes, but also of the text as a whole. Thanks to the culture of borders, the “closed form” “from the subject of the image” turns “into a way of organizing a work of art” (italics saved - M.V.).

This can be seen in the example of the epithets “yellow” and “black” used in the description of the hotel: the lower floor of the hotel “was plastered and remained in dark red bricks, darkened even more by the wild weather changes”; “The top one was painted with eternal yellow paint.” The expression “was painted with eternal yellow paint” can be understood to mean that the walls of the hotel were painted with yellow paint a long time ago; can be seen in the “eternal yellow paint” and a symbol of imperturbable staticity.

The epithet “black” is also given a special status, fulfilling not only a stylistic but also a compositional role. The epithet is used in different episodes of the poem in thirteen cases, and is included in contextual synonymous rows with the words “dark” and “gray”.

The dominance of the epithets “dark” and “black” should be attributed to the sphere of intentionality, dictated by the author’s intention. The description ends with a mention that one of the two samovars standing on the window “was pitch black.” The word-detail, as well as its contextual synonyms, create a ring composition of the landscape. The epithet “black” incorporates a holistic characteristic of “internal” and “external”. At the same time, the symbolic meaning of the word is not confined to a single picture, but extends to other episodes. In the description of a luxurious evening in the governor’s house, the epithet “black” enters into semantic connections with “an air squadron of flies”, “black tailcoats” and, finally, into unusual connections with “light”, “white shining refined sugar”: “Everything was flooded with light. Black tailcoats flashed and rushed separately and in heaps here and there, like flies scampering on white shining refined sugar...”

Thus, the same picture in “Dead Souls” is drawn from two angles - from the place from which the adventurer Chichikov sees it, and from the value point from which the author-narrator contemplates it. On the moving border of Chichikov’s practical view of things and their author’s emotional, evaluative and creative perception, semantic levels of landscape arise, acting as something other than just a means of typification. These levels of semantics appear due to the combination of “different positions” that play the role of compositional means.

The landscape in the chapter about Manilov is presented at the level of conflicting interaction between two points of view - Chichikov and the author. The description is preceded by a three-dimensional picture, which the further, the more rapidly it strives to take over the “inner” space of Manilov: “The master’s house stood alone on the south, that is, on a hill open to all the winds...”. This is followed by “sloping mountains”, on which there are “trimmed turfs”, two or three “flower beds scattered in English style”, “five or six birches” “here and there raised their small-leaved thin peaks”. Under two of them there was a gazebo with the inscription: “Temple of solitary reflection”, and there, lower - “a pond covered with greenery<...>At the bottom of this elevation, and partly along the slope itself, gray log huts darkened along and across<...>There was no growing tree or any greenery between them; There was only one log visible everywhere. At some distance to the side, a pine forest darkened with some dull bluish color.”

The landscape becomes substantively denser, semantically significant details increase in it, but the description here is directed not in depth, but in breadth - it is linear. This perspective of the landscape does not reveal depth of character, but rather the absence of it. But the movement in breadth still has a limit, noted by the author. It passes where the presence of another world is noted - a darkening pine forest, as if from the things of boredom contemplating the man-made landscape of Manilov.

A constant detail in the characterization of Manilovism, designated by the word “dandy,” draws into its orbit a synonymous series that expands the reader’s perception: a house on an “elevation,” “Aglitsky gardens of Russian landowners,” “scattered flower beds in an English style,” etc. The space of “made beauty” can extend to infinity and increase in volume through the accumulation of details. But in any case, its openness is illusory, doomed to horizontality and devoid of verticality. Manilov’s landscape reaches the limit of the “top”: “The day was either clear or gloomy, but of some light gray color, which only happens on the old uniforms of garrison soldiers.” Here even the “top” loses its objective meaning, since it is reduced to comparison with the uniforms of garrison soldiers.

The word “dandy”, still only noticeable in the description of Manilov’s surroundings, is used as a key word when describing the interior: “wonderful furniture covered with dandy silk fabric”, “a dandy candlestick made of dark bronze with three antique graces, with a dandy shield”. The expressive word “dandy” compositionally connects the story about Manilov with the image of a city young man “in white rosin trousers, very narrow and short, in a tailcoat with attempts at fashion.” Thanks to the associative connection, “young man” and Manilov fall into the same semantic series.

Thus, Chichikov’s practical point of view in the description is not self-sufficient: it is shaded by the author’s point of view, revealing connections between individual fragments of the world that are invisible to the character. In the complex structure of “Dead Souls” by M.Yu. Lotman noted an unusual hierarchy: “the characters, the reader and the author are included in different types” of “special space”; “the heroes are on the ground, their horizon is obscured by objects, they know nothing except practical everyday considerations.” The heroes of the “stationary, “closed” locus are opposed by the heroes of the “open” space”, “heroes of the path” and, of course, the author himself, who is a man of the path.

The petrified life of provincial landowners, the semantic categoricalness of “mud of little things” unexpectedly collides with the energy of the author’s word. Mobile border semantic zones are exposed. So, entering Manilov’s office, Chichikov utters the words: “Nice room.” The writer picks up the phrase uttered by Chichikov, but subordinates it to his own point of view, which is necessary, first of all, to deepen the parodic meaning of the metaphor of “panache”: “The room was definitely not without pleasantness: the walls were painted with some kind of blue paint<...>tobacco<...>it was just piled up on the table. On both windows<...>there were piles of ash knocked out of the pipe, placed<...>very beautiful rows...”

The word “heap” plays a special role in the text, giving, at first glance, the impression of situational use. Gogol uses it often in the poem (in nineteen cases). It is noteworthy that it is absent in the chapter about Sobakevich, but is used with particular intensity in the episodes dedicated to Plyushkin. The noun “heap” is also found in chapters devoted to the provincial city. It is clear that Chichikov’s point of view is, in principle, devoid of such creative activity.

The iconic components of the landscape and interior can be called key in the author's plan; they can also be considered as hermeneutical pointers on the path to understanding the author's intention. Being included in the writer’s horizons, they carry the semantic energy of previous landscape drawings. Their function is to create invisible, barely perceptible threads between the individual parts of the work.

The landscape of the provincial city is revealed through the perception of Chichikov. Thanks to the author's view, it gradually acquires a two-voiced character. Here are the dominant signs of the city: “yellow paint on stone houses”, “gray on wooden ones”, the houses had an “eternal mezzanine”; in some places these houses seemed “lost among a street as wide as a field”, “in some places huddled together”; a drawing of “billiards with two players in tailcoats, the kind that our theater guests wear.” The city garden “consisted of thin trees, poorly grown, with supports at the bottom, in the form of triangles, very beautifully painted with green oil paint.”

Taken separately, these details do not seem to penetrate into other descriptions. But upon mental contemplation of the entire Gogol text, they acquire unity. It turns out that there are semantic relationships between them, so the writer’s use of the word “heap” to the city landscape, the description of the evening in the governor’s house, and Manilov’s interior is not accidental. The author connects the individual parts of the poem not only by plot; he connects and unites them thanks to repeated verbal images. The word “heap” is used in describing the world of Plyushkin and Korobochka. Moreover, it is constantly adjacent to the epithet “correct,” that is, with the characters’ own ideas about symmetry and beauty.

The picture of landowner life and the signs of space in the chapter about Korobochka are given through the eyes of Chichikov, and twice. The first time Chichikov comes here is at night in rainy weather. And the second time, when the hero contemplates the world of Korobochka in the early morning, the same details of space and setting are supplemented with new details. The case is unique, since in the description of Korobochka’s yard the boundaries between the perception of the character and the author-narrator are almost invisible.

Chichikov is presented with a “small house,” only “one half” of which is “illuminated with light.” “There was also a puddle in front of the house, which was directly hit by the same light. The rain pattered loudly on the wooden roof,<...>the dogs burst into all possible voices.” It is eloquent that the episode reflected the non-pragmatic activity of the character, which is evident from the convergence of his point of view with the point of view of the author (“illuminated with light” is a Gogol expression). Chichikov's gaze selects the details of the landscape in accordance with the logic with which the writer created the landscape, depicting the space of the county town, Manilov. Rare cases of closeness between Chichikov and the author were pointed out by Yu. Mann, who noted that in some episodes of the poem “the narrator’s reasoning leads to the character’s introspection,” in turn, “the character’s (Chichikov’s) introspection turns into the narrator’s reasoning.” By author's introspection, the scientist meant an objective idea of ​​the subject of the image belonging to the narrator.

The interior of Korobochka is also given through the eyes of Chichikov: “The room was hung with old striped wallpaper; paintings with some birds; between the windows there are old small mirrors with dark frames in the form of curled leaves...". And at the same time, the description is not free from the energetic words of the author-narrator. The writer is recognized by his passion for diminutive suffixes, the word “dark”, and light painting (“illuminated with light”). The author can also guess that he willingly gives objects a figurative embodiment (frames in the form of “curled leaves”). And yet, Chichikov’s point of view dominates the picture. For the first time, the character finds himself not inside the depicted world, but outside it. And this is no coincidence. In the morning Chichikov “began to examine the views before him: the window looked almost into a chicken coop<...>a narrow courtyard filled with birds and all kinds of domestic creatures<...>There were apple trees and other fruit trees scattered around the garden.<...>Following the vegetable garden were peasant huts, which, although they were built scattered and not enclosed in regular streets...”

Despite the fact that the Korobochka estate gives the impression of a fortress, it does not correspond to the ideal: its dilapidation is felt. The epithet “wrong” appears, which, in the course of the plot, finds itself in new verbal and semantic contexts. It is in the chapter about Korobochka that he is directly correlated with the image of Chichikov, which makes it possible to see connections between the characters that they do not realize.

It is appropriate here to mention the story “Old World Landowners”, where the landscape, in contrast to the Korobochka estate, creates a feeling of abundance. The world of old-world landowners is associated with a corner of paradise: God did not offend the humble inhabitants of the Russian land in any way. In this regard, the story of fruit trees bent low to the ground from the weight and many fruits on them is illustrative.

In the description of Korobochka’s space, the motif of “animal” abundance is intensively introduced. The main characteristics of her world are “animal” metaphors and the epithet “narrow”. The phrase: “a narrow courtyard filled with birds and all kinds of domestic creatures” absorbs the characteristics of the hostess. She also hints at Chichikov: a not entirely linear description of the character is outlined, the prospect of his “internal” reflection.

The world of Korobochka correlates with the world of Chichikov himself - the image of her “narrow yard” is correlated with the “internal arrangement” of Chichikov’s box, a detailed description of which appears in the chapter about the landowner. In “the very middle is a soap dish, behind the soap dish there are six or seven narrow partitions for razors.” The following expression “all sorts of partitions with and without lids” is associated with the story of peasant huts that “were built randomly and were not enclosed in regular streets.” Order and “correctness” in Chichikov’s box, thanks to the indicated convergences, become synonymous with Korobochka’s “wrong” way of life. And the “animal” motif, in turn, semantically and emotionally prepares the reader for the perception of “Nozdrevism”.

Nozdryov's yard was no different from a kennel, just like Korobochka's yard was no different from a chicken coop. The associative series continues to hint at the poverty of “land abundance”: the field along which Nozdryov led the guests “consisted of hummocks.” The author persistently emphasizes the idea: the land belonging to these landowners is barren, as if it had lost God’s mercy. The motif of the barrenness of the land originates in the description of the provincial “garden” (consisting of “thin trees” “no taller than reeds”); it expands spatially and semantically deepens in the story about Manilov’s estate (“sloping mountains”, “small-leaved thin tops” of birch trees); about Korobochka’s yard (“apple trees and other fruit trees were scattered here and there throughout the garden”). But in the description of Nozdryov’s estate, the motif reaches its semantic peak.

At the same time, the opposition between “right” and “wrong” is deepening. Depth is achieved by the fact that the description combines (to a certain extent) the position of the character and the position of the narrator. In the chapter on Sobakevich, Chichikov’s perception paradoxically combines details that meet his pragmatic interests and elements that bring his point of view closer to the author’s. The epithet “wrong”, referred to the world of Korobochka, becomes a metaphorical expression of an entire way of life. Chichikov could not get rid of the feeling of some blatant asymmetry of the entire landowner way of life and Sobakevich’s appearance. Here, apparently, Chichikov’s travel impressions could not be avoided. The road, as noted by a modern researcher, “in the poem also serves as a test for the hero, a test of his ability to go beyond his own horizons.” The motif of the path is probably no less important for deepening the semantics of the opposition “right” - “wrong” - it reaches a concrete, objective embodiment in the chapter about Plyushkin. In the description of Plyushkin's estate, the author develops the landscape motifs outlined in previous chapters. Here they receive semantic completion and unity.

The first part of the landscape is entirely given in Chichikov’s horizons; but the author, in turn, seems to penetrate into the character’s horizons, comments, evaluates what might not correspond to Chichikov’s character. Obviously, Gogol, by his presence in the description, on the one hand, introduces what he saw to the reader’s perception, and on the other, to the consciousness of Chichikov himself. Thus, the “double illumination” technique used by the writer imperceptibly prepares a shift in the hero’s moral sense. In the landscape, given, at first glance, through the perception of Chichikov, a style stands out that refers to the position of the author-narrator: “the balconies are askew and turned black, not even picturesquely”; “all sorts of rubbish grew”; “two village churches: an empty wooden one and a stone one, with yellow walls, stained. This strange castle looked like some kind of decrepit invalid<...>» .

The author is also recognizable by his passion for painting. But there is something in the text that certainly cannot be correlated with Chichikov’s point of view - bewilderment at the fact that the balconies “turned black” so ugly that there was nothing “picturesque” in them. This is, of course, the artist’s view. Adjacent to it is the ballad image used by Gogol (“strange castle”) and correlated with the physically tangible image of a “decrepit disabled person.” There is nothing even insignificantly “picturesque”, and therefore there is nothing to “raise into the pearl of creation.” Colloquial “all sorts of rubbish grew”, meaning that the earth “dried up”, “degenerated” , both Chichikov and the author could mentally say.

The story about the picturesque garden makes up the second part of the landscape, but it is included exclusively in the author’s horizons. The path to the artistic, symbolic meaning of the landscape is closed to Chichikov. Reminiscences referring to Dante, Shakespeare, Karamzin, folklore confirm what has been said. The landscape has a “summative” meaning. He appears as a “familiar stranger.” In addition, when describing the garden, Gogol freely uses heterogeneous semantic and stylistic figures: the garden, “overgrown and decayed” - the garden “was alone picturesque in its pictorial desolation”; “green and irregular trembling-leaved domes” - birch “like a regular sparkling marble column” - “nature has destroyed the grossly perceptible correctness”, etc. Gogol creates a landscape in exact accordance with the ideal that he told his contemporary: “If I were an artist, I would invent a special kind of landscape<...>I would link tree to tree, mix up the branches, throw light where no one expects it, that’s the kind of landscapes you should paint!” .

It is striking with what consistency and intensity Gogol uses the same words and verbal forms to express the artistic idea of ​​a landscape. Almost all the details of the picture are familiar from previous descriptions. The symbolic image of the garden is crowned with a series of words that was associated with the point of view and value position of the author. The spatial density of the depicted garden is also striking, especially striking if you compare it with the “empty” land of the landowners.

The motif of infertile land in Manilov’s world was emphasized by reference to “sloping mountains.” At the same time, the forest was also mentioned, but the fact of the matter is that the “darkening forest” did not seem to be part of Manilov’s world, since it was located on the other side of Manilov’s world (“to the side”). There is a natural analogy with the garden in the provincial town: it “consisted of thin trees, badly grown, with supports at the bottom, in the form of triangles.” Only in the chapter about Plyushkin, describing the garden, does Gogol introduce the motif of the reborn earth. But the fertile land, the sun, the sky are also on the other side, they seem not to be involved in Plyushkin’s world: “a garden that went beyond the village and then disappeared into the field.”

In Gogol's description, the contrasting meanings of “dark” are smoothed out. As for the opposition “correct” - “wrong”, it is completely removed (“green and incorrect...”, “birch as correct”); Even the “narrow path” is poetic here. Both of them, created by the joint efforts of nature and art, are in perfect agreement with the laws of beauty and symmetry, with the idea of ​​“fertile land.” It is interesting that here even the color detail reaches its finale: supports in the form of “triangles”, “painted with green oil paint.” In the image of Plyushkin’s yard, the color green becomes a symbol of death: “Green mold has already covered the dilapidated tree on the fence and gate.” The motif of death is intensified in the depiction of Plyushkin’s interior space: “a wide entryway from which the wind blew, as if from a cellar”; “The room is dark, slightly illuminated by light.”

In the poem “Dead Souls” the landscape is endowed with a multi-level semantic and narrative plan. The first level includes an imaginary, ideal landscape, functioning in the context of the lyrical theme of the work. It is included exclusively in the author’s horizons and serves as the boundary between the world of Chichikov, the landowners and the ideal world of Gogol. The background includes a landscape implying “known views”, correlated with the theme of “dead souls” and here fulfilling the function of typification. But the second plan of the landscape strategy is not linear: it is endowed with semantic polyphony, a change of subjects of perception, and a combination of points of view. The mobility of the semantics of the landscape serves to “expose” the linear life path of the characters. Repetitive details included in the sphere of the author's perception, thanks to their repetition, acquire the polysemy of the symbol, smooth out the satirical, typifying orientation of the landscape, and reveal implicit connections with the lyrical digressions in the poem. The character is described, on the one hand, from the point of his passive contemplation of his own existence, in unity with the vulgar surroundings (the character’s horizons and surroundings are thought of as something closed); and from the creatively active position of the author-narrator, who opens this isolation and illuminates it with the thought of the spiritual principles of human life.

Bibliography

Annenkov P.V. Gogol in Rome in the summer of 1841 // Annenkov P.V. Literary Memoirs. - M.: Pravda, 1989. - 688 p.

Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. - M.: Art, 1979. - 424 p.

Virolainen M.N. Historical metamorphoses of Russian literature. St. Petersburg: Amphora, 2007. - 495 p.

Gogol N.V. Collected Works in eight volumes. - T. 5. - M.: Pravda, 1984. - 319 p.

Dobin E.S. Plot and reality. The art of detail. - L.: Soviet writer, 1981, - 432 p.

Krivonos V.Sh. Gogol’s “Dead Souls: Road Views” // New Philological Bulletin. - 2010. - No. 1. - pp. 82-91.

Lotman Yu.M. Artistic space in Gogol’s prose // Lotman Yu.M. At the school of poetic word. Pushkin. Lermontov. Gogol. - M.: Education, 1988. - 352 p.

Mann Yu.V. Gogol's poetics. - M.: Fiction, 1989. - 413 p.

Smirnova E.A. Gogol's poem "Dead Souls". - L.: Science (Leningrad branch), 1987. - 201 p.

Tamarchenko N.D. Point of view // Introduction to literary criticism. Literary work: basic concepts and terms. - M.: Higher School, 2004. - P. 379-389.

Uspensky B.A. Poetics of composition. - St. Petersburg: Azbuka, 2000. - 352 p.

Eliade M. Selected Works. Essays on comparative religion. Transl. from English - M.: Ladomir, 1999. (Electronic version). Access mode: http://wwwgumer.info/bogoslov_Buks/comparative_bogoslov/eliade/09.php. (date of access: 01/03/2013).

It is quite difficult for an inexperienced reader to feel all the charm of N.V. Gogol’s works. Reading “Dead Souls” for the first time, I simply followed the development of the plot, the author’s and speech characteristics of the characters and could not understand what the secret of Gogol’s prose was, why for two centuries it continues to excite and attract readers. But later, reading the lines of the poem, I saw that the world created by the writer on the pages of “Dead Souls” is full of amazing artistic details that Gogol saw through the eye of an artist. And Gogol’s world came to life, sparkled with all its colors, awakening in the soul now joy, now bitterness, now compassion, now hatred.
Here in front of us is Manilov’s office, in which lies a book that has been open for two years on page fourteen, as faceless as its owner. Symbols of the boring and sloppy dreamer Manilov are the fat green duckweed on the pond, and the gazebo with blue columns and the pretentious inscription “Temple of Solitary Reflection,” and the details of the furnishings of the house, in which something was always missing. Beautiful furniture upholstered in beautiful silk fabric is adjacent to two armchairs upholstered in simple matting, and dandy candlesticks made of dark bronze with three antique graces are adjacent to a lame copper invalid curled to the side. All these details perfectly confirm the words Gogol said about Manilov: this is a man “so-so, neither this nor that, neither in the city of Bogdan, nor in the village of Selifan.” His projects for upholstering armchairs and furnishing empty rooms are akin to empty dreams of a stone bridge with shops where they would sell goods to peasants. But perhaps the most expressive symbol of Manilov’s lack of spirituality and worthlessness are the piles of ashes that he places in neat rows on the windowsill. This is the only art available to him.
The image of Sobakevich is woven from many telling details. His things bear a “strange resemblance to the owner of the house himself.” The pot-bellied nut bureau, like Sobakevich himself, looks like a bear. “The table, the chair, the chairs - everything was of the heaviest and most restless quality,” and each object seemed to say: “And I, too, Sobakevich!” Some kind of primitive animal power is felt in the landowner, which is visible even during lunch, when the owner absorbs an incredible number of different dishes. He gnaws huge pieces down to the last bone, and everything on the table is gigantic in size: a cheesecake the size of a large plate, a turkey the size of a calf. It is not surprising that one gets the impression that there is no soul in this body, and if there is, it is “closed in such a thick shell that whatever moved at the bottom of it did not produce absolutely any shock on the surface.”
But perhaps the most striking character depicted by Gogol in “Dead Souls” is the landowner Plyushkin. A master of artistic detail, the writer notices completely incompatible objects in the furnishings of his home, giving an idea of ​​the hero’s past and present life. So, unlike Manilov, Plyushkin once read: he has “some old book bound in leather,” perhaps bought by the owner in the old days, when he was a thrifty owner and his neighbors came to him to learn “wise stinginess.” . The “cabinet with antique silver” and the bureau “lined with mother-of-pearl mosaics” remind of past luxury. Signs of the landowner’s current life are a chandelier in a canvas bag, “the dust made it look like a silk cocoon in which a worm sits,” an inkwell with some moldy liquid and a lot of flies at the bottom, a heap of unnecessary junk, from which a broken piece of a wooden shovel sticks out and old boot sole. Everything testifies to what “insignificance, pettiness, disgustingness” a person can reach.

Essay on literature on the topic: Mastery of artistic detail in the poem “Dead Souls”

Other writings:

1. Drawing a satirical panorama of feudal-bureaucratic Russia in his poem “Dead Souls,” Gogol widely uses his favorite artistic technique - characterizing a character through detail. Let's consider how the writer uses this technique, using the example of the “landowner” chapters of the poem. Manilov makes a favorable impression at first glance Read More ......
2. The grandiose artistic canvas of the epic novel “War and Peace” incorporates a wide variety of artistic techniques and means, one of which is detail. A master of psychological analysis, Tolstoy reveals to the reader the “dialectic of the soul” of his heroes, fixing our attention on the most important points with the help of Read More ......
3. I. A. Bunin entered Russian literature as a realist writer, even a traditionalist. When everyone was keen on innovation, Bunin remained faithful to the precepts of Russian classics. Bunin himself did not like to be assigned to any “camp”, because his style absorbed all the best Read More ......
4. The theme of living and dead souls is the main one in Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls”. We can judge this by the title of the poem, which not only contains a hint of the essence of Chichikov’s scam, but also contains a deeper meaning that reflects the author’s intent of the first Read More ......
5. Gogol's poem “Dead Souls” is one of the best works of world literature. The writer worked on the creation of this poem for 17 years, but never completed his plan. “Dead Souls” is the result of many years of Gogol’s observations and reflections on human destinies, destinies Read More ......
6. At the beginning of work on the poem, N.V. Gogol wrote to V.A. Zhukovsky: “What a huge, what an original plot! What a varied bunch! All Rus' will appear in it.” This is how Gogol himself determined the scope of his work - all of Rus'. And the writer managed to show in Read More......
7. “No writer has yet had this gift of showing so clearly the vulgarity of life, of being able to outline in such force the vulgarity of a vulgar person, so that all the little things that escape the eye would flash large in the eyes of everyone,” Read More wrote about Gogol. .....
8. The basis of N.V. Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls” is the scam of its main character, the former official Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov. This man conceived and practically carried out a very simple, but inherently ingenious fraud. Chichikov bought dead peasant souls from landowners, Read More......

The difference between human vision and what the compound eye of an insect sees can be compared to the difference between a half-tone cliche made on the finest raster and the same image made on the coarsest grid used for newspaper reproductions. Gogol's vision also applies to the vision of average readers and average writers. Before the appearance of him and Pushkin, Russian literature was somewhat blind. The forms she noticed were only outlines suggested by reason; she did not see color as such and only used worn-out combinations of blind nouns and dog-like epithets devoted to them, which Europe inherited from the ancients. The sky was blue, the dawn was scarlet, the foliage was green, the eyes of the beauties were black, the clouds were gray, etc. Only Gogol (and after him Lermontov and Tolstoy) saw yellow and purple colors. The fact that the sky at sunrise can be pale green, the snow deep blue on a cloudless day, would sound like meaningless heresy in the ears of a so-called “classical” writer accustomed to the unchanging, generally accepted color scheme of 18th-century French literature. An indicator of how the art of description has developed over the centuries can be seen in the changes that artistic vision has undergone; the compound eye becomes a single, unusually complex organ, and the dead, dull “accepted colors” (as if “innate ideas”) gradually highlight subtle shades and create new wonders of the image. I doubt that any writer, especially in Russia, has previously noticed such an amazing phenomenon as the trembling pattern of light and shadow on the ground under the trees or the color pranks of the sun on the foliage. The description of Plyushkin's garden struck Russian readers almost as much as Manet struck the mustachioed philistines of his era.

“The old, vast garden stretching behind the house, overlooking the village and then disappearing into the field, overgrown and decayed, seemed to alone refresh this vast village and alone was quite picturesque in its picturesque desolation. The connected tops of trees growing in freedom lay on the sky horizon like green clouds and irregular trembling leafy domes. A white colossal birch trunk, devoid of a top, broken off by a storm or thunderstorm, rose from this green thicket and rounded in the air, like a regular sparkling marble column; its oblique, pointed break, with which it ended upward instead of a capital, darkened against its snowy whiteness, like a hat or a black bird. The hops, which choked the elderberry, rowan and hazel bushes below and then ran along the top of the entire palisade, finally ran up and entwined half the broken birch. Reaching the middle

From there, he hung down and began to cling to the tops of other trees, or he hung in the air, tying his thin, tenacious hooks in rings, easily swayed by the air. In places, green thickets, illuminated by the sun, diverged and showed an unlit depression between them, gaping like a dark mouth; it was all cast in shadow, and faintly flickered in the black depths of it: a running narrow path, collapsed railings, a swaying gazebo, a hollow, decrepit willow trunk, a gray-haired chap, with thick bristles poking out from behind the willow, withered leaves from the terrible wilderness, tangled and crossed leaves and branches, and, finally, a young maple branch, stretching out its green leaf paws from the side, under one of which, God knows how, the sun suddenly turned it into transparent and fiery, shining wonderfully in this thick darkness. To the side, at the very edge of the garden, several tall aspen trees, no match for the others, raised huge crow's nests to their tremulous tops. Some of them had pulled back and not completely separated branches hanging down along with withered leaves. In a word, everything was as good as neither nature nor art could imagine, but as only happens when they are united together, when, through the piled-up, often useless, work of man, nature passes with its final cutter, lightens the heavy masses, destroys the grossly tangible correctness and beggarly gaps through which the unhidden, naked plan peeks through, and will give wonderful warmth to everything that was created in the cold of measured cleanliness and neatness.”