A collection of ideal social studies essays. Images of officials in “Dead Souls” Critical depiction of officials in Russian literature

Which works of Russian classics depict the morals of bureaucracy and in what ways do these works have something in common with Gogol’s “The Inspector General”?

Read the text fragment below and complete tasks B1-B7; C1-C2.

Bobchinsky<...>We had just arrived at the hotel when suddenly a young man...

Dobchinsky (interrupting). Not bad looking, in a private dress...

: Bobchinsky. Not bad-looking, in a particular dress, walks around the room like that, and in his face there’s a kind of reasoning... physiognomy... actions, and here (twirls his hand near his forehead). many, many things. It was as if I had a presentiment and said to Pyotr Ivanovich: “There’s something here for a reason, sir.” Yes. And Peter Ivanovich already blinked his finger and called the innkeeper, sir, the innkeeper Vlas: his wife gave birth to him three weeks ago, and such a lively boy will, just like his father, run the inn. Pyotr Ivanovich called Vlas and asked him quietly: “Who, he says, is this young man? “- and Vlas answers this: “This,” he says... Eh, don’t interrupt, Pyotr Ivanovich, please don’t interrupt; you won’t tell, by God you won’t tell: you whisper; you, I know, have one tooth whistling in your mouth... “This is, he says, a young man, an official,” yes, sir, “coming from St. Petersburg, and his last name, he says, is Ivan Aleksandrovich Khlestakov, sir, but he’s going, he says, to the Saratov province and, he says, he attests to himself in a very strange way: he’s been living for another week, he’s not leaving the tavern, he’s taking everything into his account and doesn’t want to pay a penny.” As he told me this, and so it was brought to my senses from above. “Eh! “I say to Pyotr Ivanovich...

Dobchinsky. No, Pyotr Ivanovich, it was I who said: “eh! »

Bobchinsky. First you said it, and then I said it too. “Eh! - Pyotr Ivanovich and I said. - Why on earth should he sit here when his road lies to the Saratov province? "Yes, sir. But he is this official.

Mayor. Who, what official?

Bobchinsky. The official about whom you deigned to receive a lecture is an auditor.

Mayor (in fear). What are you, God bless you! It's not him.

Dobchinsky. He! and he doesn’t pay money and doesn’t go. Who else should it be if not him? And the road ticket is registered in Saratov.

Bobchinsky. He, he, by God he... So observant: he examined everything. He saw that Pyotr Ivanovich and I were eating salmon, more because Pyotr Ivanovich was talking about his stomach... yes, he looked into our plates. I was filled with fear.

Mayor. Lord, have mercy on us sinners! Where does he live there?

Dobchinsky. In the fifth room, under the stairs.

Bobchinsky. In the same room where visiting officers fought last year.

Mayor. How long has he been here?

Dobchinsky. And it’s already two weeks. Came to see Vasily the Egyptian.

Mayor. Two weeks! (To the side.) Fathers, matchmakers! Bring it out, holy saints! In these two weeks the non-commissioned officer's wife was flogged! The prisoners were not given provisions! There's a tavern on the streets, it's unclean! A shame! vilification! (He grabs his head.)

Artemy Filippovich. Well, Anton Antonovich? - Parade to the hotel.

Ammos Fedorovich. No no! Put your head forward, the clergy, the merchants; here in the book “The Acts of John Mason”...

Mayor. No no; let me do it myself. There have been difficult situations in life, we went, and even received thanks. Perhaps God will bear it now. (Addressing Bobchinsky.) You say he is a young man?

Bobchinsky. Young, about twenty-three or four years old.

Mayor. So much the better: you’ll get wind of the young man sooner. It’s a disaster if the old devil is the one who’s young and the one at the top. You, gentlemen, get ready for your part, and I will go on my own, or at least with Pyotr Ivanovich, privately, for a walk, to see if those passing by are in trouble...

N. V. Gogol “The Inspector General”

Indicate the genre to which N.V. Gogol’s play “The Inspector General” belongs.

Explanation.

N.V. Gogol's play “The Inspector General” belongs to the comedy genre. Let's give a definition.

Comedy is a dramatic work that, through satire and humor, ridicules the vices of society and man.

In the comedy, Gogol denounces lazy and careless officials who are rushing about because of the arrival of the “auditor”. A small town is a miniature copy of the state.

Answer: comedy.

Answer: comedy

Name a literary movement that flourished in the second half of the 19th century and whose principles were embodied in Gogol’s play.

Explanation.

This literary movement is called realism. Let's give a definition.

Realism is a truthful depiction of reality.

Realism in The Inspector General is shown by typical characters of that time: careless officials.

Answer: realism.

Answer: Realism

The above fragment conveys a lively conversation between the characters. What is this form of communication between characters in a work of fiction called?

Explanation.

This form of communication is called dialogue. Let's give a definition.

Dialogue is a conversation between two or more persons in a work of fiction. In a dramatic work, the dialogue of the characters is one of the main artistic means for creating an image and character.

Answer: dialogue.

Answer: dialogue|polylogue

Indicate the term that denotes the author's comments and explanations during the action of the play (“interrupting,” “in fear,” etc.)

Explanation.

Such author's comments are called remarks. Let's give a definition. A remark is a commentary by the author that complements the content of the work.

Answer: remark.

Answer: remark|remarks

The action of the play is based on the confrontation between officials of the city of N and the imaginary auditor. What is the name of confrontation, confrontation that serves as a stimulus for the development of action?

Explanation.

This confrontation is called conflict. Let's give a definition.

Conflict is a clash of opposing views of characters in epic, drama, works of the lyric-epic genre, as well as in lyrics, if there is a plot in it. The conflict is realized in the verbal and physical actions of the characters. The conflict unfolds through the plot.

Answer: conflict.

Answer: Conflict

Julia Milach 02.03.2017 16:26

In training books, answers to such tasks are written “antithesis/contrast,” which implies that both options are correct. Even among the tasks on your website that ask the same thing, in some places the antithesis is recognized as the correct answer, and in others it is a contrast.

Tatiana Statsenko

Conflict is not the same as contrast. What is the contrast in this task?

The scenes of reading the letter and the appearance of Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky with the news about the auditor set the course for the main events of the play. Indicate the term denoting this stage of action development.

Explanation.

This stage of development is called the beginning. Let's give a definition.

The plot is the event that begins the development of action in a literary work.

Mayor. I invited you, gentlemen, in order to tell you some very unpleasant news: an auditor is coming to visit us.

Ammos Fedorovich. How's the auditor?

Artemy Filippovich. How's the auditor?

Mayor. Inspector from St. Petersburg, incognito. And with a secret order.

Ammos Fedorovich. Here you go! "..."

Answer: connection.

Answer: Tie

Explanation.

The morals of officialdom are a topical topic for Russian classical literature of the 19th century. The theme raised by Gogol in “The Inspector General”, “The Overcoat”, brilliantly developed by him in “Dead Souls”, was reflected in the stories of A.P. Chekhov: “Fat and Thin”, “Death of an Official” and others. The distinctive features of officials in the works of Gogol and Chekhov are bribery, stupidity, money-grubbing, inability to develop and fulfill the main function assigned to them - managing a city, province, state. Let us remember the officials of the county town from Dead Souls. Their interests are limited to their own pockets and entertainment, they see the meaning of life in veneration of rank, and the officials in the above excerpt from “The Inspector General” appear like this before us. Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky, Ammos Fedorovich, even the mayor - each of them has something to fear, this fear does not allow them to consider Khlestakov’s true face, but they are frantically trying to get out of an unpleasant situation by any means. In Chekhov’s stories, the official is so insignificant that he is ready to die from fear of a higher rank (“Death of an Official”), this is the path from Gogol’s official to Chekhov’s official - complete degradation.

Which works of Russian classics depict the morals of bureaucracy and in what ways do these works have something in common with Gogol’s “The Inspector General”?

Bobchinsky We had just arrived at the hotel when suddenly a young man...

Dobchinsky (interrupting). Not bad looking, in a private dress...

Bobchinsky. Not bad-looking, in a particular dress, walks around the room like that, and in his face there’s this kind of reasoning... physiognomy... actions, and here (twists his hand near his forehead). many, many things. It was as if I had a presentiment and said to Pyotr Ivanovich: “There’s something here for a reason, sir.” Yes. And Peter Ivanovich already blinked his finger and called the innkeeper, sir, the innkeeper Vlas: his wife gave birth to him three weeks ago, and such a lively boy will, just like his father, run the inn. Pyotr Ivanovich called Vlas and asked him quietly: “Who, he says, is this young man? “- and Vlas answers this: “This,” he says... Eh, don’t interrupt, Pyotr Ivanovich, please don’t interrupt; you won’t tell, by God you won’t tell: you whisper; you, I know, have one tooth whistling in your mouth... “This is, he says, a young man, an official,” yes, sir, “coming from St. Petersburg, and his last name, he says, is Ivan Aleksandrovich Khlestakov, sir, but he’s going, he says, to the Saratov province and, he says, he attests to himself in a very strange way: he’s been living for another week, he’s not leaving the tavern, he’s taking everything into his account and doesn’t want to pay a penny.” As he told me this, and so it was brought to my senses from above. “Eh! “- I say to Pyotr Ivanovich...

Dobchinsky. No, Pyotr Ivanovich, it was I who said: “eh! »

Bobchinsky. First you said it, and then I said it too. “Eh! - Pyotr Ivanovich and I said. - Why on earth should he sit here when his road lies to the Saratov province? "Yes, sir. But he is this official.

Mayor. Who, what official?

Bobchinsky. The official about whom you deigned to receive a notation is an auditor.

Mayor (in fear). What are you, God bless you! It's not him.

Dobchinsky. He! and he doesn’t pay money and doesn’t go. Who else should it be if not him? And the road ticket is registered in Saratov.

Bobchinsky. He, he, by God he... So observant: he examined everything. He saw that Pyotr Ivanovich and I were eating salmon, more because Pyotr Ivanovich was talking about his stomach... yes, he looked into our plates. I was filled with fear.

Mayor. Lord, have mercy on us sinners! Where does he live there?

Dobchinsky. In the fifth room, under the stairs.

Bobchinsky. In the same room where visiting officers fought last year.

Mayor. How long has he been here?

Dobchinsky. And it’s already two weeks. Came to see Vasily the Egyptian.

Mayor. Two weeks! (To the side.) Fathers, matchmakers! Bring it out, holy saints! In these two weeks the non-commissioned officer's wife was flogged! The prisoners were not given provisions! There's a tavern on the streets, it's unclean! A shame! vilification! (He grabs his head.)

Artemy Filippovich. Well, Anton Antonovich? - Parade to the hotel.

Ammos Fedorovich. No no! Put your head forward, the clergy, the merchants; here in the book “The Acts of John Mason”...

Mayor. No no; let me do it myself. There have been difficult situations in life, we went, and even received thanks. Perhaps God will bear it now. (Addressing Bobchinsky.) You say he is a young man?

Bobchinsky. Young, about twenty-three or four years old.

Mayor. So much the better: you’ll get wind of the young man sooner. It’s a disaster if the old devil is the one who’s young and the one at the top. You, gentlemen, get ready for your part, and I will go on my own, or at least with Pyotr Ivanovich, privately, for a walk, to see if those passing by are in trouble...

N. V. Gogol “The Inspector General”

Show full text

Russian classics in their works often covered the morals of officials in Russia. Thus, in the comedy “Woe from Wit” by Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov, the “Famus society” is shown. It depicts “servants of the people” who defend the old order, advocate veneration and groveling before the highest ranks. A prominent representative of this society is Molchalin, a hypocritical and unprincipled young man. He is obsequious and immoral (“After all, you have to depend on others... // We are of small ranks”). The comedies “The Inspector General” and “Woe from Wit” are similar in that the officials described in them (the mayor, Strawberry

Images of officials in Russian literatureXIXV

(Based on the works of A.P. Chekhov)

Denisova Natalya Mikhailovna, teacher of Russian language and literature

MCOU "Secondary School No. 1"

Introduction

Russian bureaucracy is a phenomenal phenomenon in our national history and modernity.

The term “officialdom” comes from the Old Russian “chin”, which meant “row, order, established order” (violation of which is disorder). But these meanings are now forgotten. In our understanding, rank is a title that allows you to occupy certain positions. Thus, bureaucracy (its modern synonym is bureaucracy), which will be discussed, is a category of persons professionally engaged in office work and performing executive functions in the public administration system.

The importance of bureaucracy in Russia is determined by the fact that throughout entire historical eras the bureaucratic hierarchy has been an important basis for the social division of society. The concept of “rank” in Russian imperial culture acquired a self-sufficient and almost mystical character. Expressing regret that “we don’t respect intelligence, but honor rank,” A.S. Pushkin stated: “Ranks have become the passion of the Russian people.”

This rank, this phenomenon that took shape over a hundred and fifty years, has grown into the habits of Russian ambition... How did it develop historically?

The introduction of ranks in Russia really streamlined public life in many ways. The Russian system of ranks was legitimized by Peter I in the “Table of Ranks,” which changed and systematized the bureaucratic hierarchy. The rank according to the Table was called “rank”, and the person who had the rank began to be called “official”.

The “Golden Age” of Russian bureaucracy was the 19th century, when Russia, in the words of V.O. Klyuchevsky, “was no longer governed by the aristocracy, but by the bureaucracy.” This is how a powerful instrument of imperial power in Russia appeared, called the Civil Service - a rigid system focused on loyalty, but not devoid of reasonable principles.

This official was an integral part of the administrative management system that gave birth to him, its main employee and main driving force.

This is the historical portrait of an official of the Nicholas era, who became the hero of the stories of A.P. Chekhov.

Relevance of the topic: the official continues to live because he is eternal, just as the immortal features that make up his essence and define the very concept of “official”. It is this amazing phenomenon, characteristic of our Russian mentality, that I will try to analyze in my article, based on the works of Chekhov.

Goal of the work: to reveal the true nature and role of bureaucracy in the life of Russian society through the stories of the great Russian writer A.P. Chekhov.

"CHEKHOV'S WORLD" AND ITS HEROES.

1.1. Great writer of "small form"

There is an inexorable historical and literary logic in the fact that it was the narrator, Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, who came to the end of the chain of Russian classics of the “Golden Age”.

Let's try to see Chekhov in the cultural and social context of his time. 80-90s of the 19th century...

The reality, on the basis of which Chekhov’s artistic creativity developed, was outwardly peaceful and received the reputation of an “eventless” time. In fact, these were the years of the darkest reaction in Russia, characterized by secrecy and unspoken forms of state terror: a continuous stream of prohibitions, reprimands, circulars that stifled living thought, killed a person’s habit of truthful free speech, excesses and ferocity of police officers and officials, complete impunity superiors...

Chekhov somehow immediately renounced the natural side of life and understood it in social categories and assessments, subsequently creating a picture of the life and customs of Russian society of his time that was grandiose in terms of breadth of coverage and depth of penetration.

In the 1890s, the domestic literary situation suddenly changed. Many readers then had the feeling that the literary substance, against the will of the writers themselves, began to shrink and concentrate. And grandiose novels were replaced by short, inconspicuous stories: the “small” form overnight triumphed over the “big”.

The rhythm of time changed, it feverishly accelerated, rushing towards the 20th century with its cataclysms and dynamics. And most importantly, the peak of development of Russian literature of the 19th century was passed, the golden era was left behind, having absorbed the energy of the centuries-long development of Russian literature, and an inevitable decline followed.

The short story genre was the best fit for literature in this situation.

Shortly before his death, Chekhov wrote to I.A. Bunin: “It’s good for you to write stories now, everyone is used to it, but I paved the way for a short story, they scolded me for it... They demanded that I write a novel, otherwise you can’t even be called a writer...”

Before Chekhov, literature did not know a method that would allow one to analyze the fleeting features of current existence and at the same time give a complete, epic picture of life. The artistic system created by him is, in essence, a system for displaying an unimaginable multitude of particulars, illuminated from different angles, from different genre perspectives, particulars merging into a huge generalization. This is a kind of creative method of in-depth realism, realism in the very flow of life, a kind of aesthetic “multitude” that replaced the old novel. Chekhov’s main artistic discovery is considered to be the story “In a Few Words, About a Lot” Chekhov told in his numerous stories, in which he first described the characteristic characters and everyday scenes of his time, later evolving to satirical stories of enormous generalizing power.

Young Chekhov began as a humorist with the genre of skits. This is a short humorous story, a picture from life, made in a dramatic manner, because its comedy is achieved by conveying the conversation of the characters. Chekhov, publishing in the St. Petersburg magazine “Oskolki,” masterfully mastered the technique of the “fragmentation” scene and raised it to the level of great literature, filling it with sparkling humor.

When it comes to satire and humor of the Chekhov type, the essence of the matter must be seen in reality itself, which can be adequately described only in a satirical-humorous form. Thus, Chekhov's satire and humor are not necessarily funny (they are even bitter), they amaze with their accuracy, brevity, expressiveness and depth of understanding of social problems. Chekhov's laughter was deeply democratic, because only equals laugh among themselves, but the authorities never speak the language of laughter with their subordinates.

The author's position of Chekhov - the storyteller - deserves attention. He places at the center of his work one episode in which, like a drop of water, all the contradictions of reality are reflected immediately, simultaneously. The author here is an objective witness, almost a chronicler: the heroes expose themselves without any help from him. The author's position is determined by the content of the story; this is quite enough.

The difficulty of perceiving the texts of Chekhov, a realist, is that he does not allow in a single drop of “deception that elevates us” and illusions. He acts as a writer of everyday life of his time, his era. All his grotesque - funny and bitter - stories, no matter how sad, are true, i.e. the quintessence of real life, an amazing copy of reality. D.V. calls Chekhov’s stories a “revolution in literature.” Grigorovich.

The continent of Chekhov's stories is striking in its numbers and population.

Apparently, Chekhov is one of the most populous writers in world literature. It turned out that almost 8 thousand characters live and act in Chekhov’s prose - eight thousand faces in five hundred stories and stories written in 1880 - 1904. They represent with epic completeness all layers of society in Russia on the borderlands of the 19th and 20th centuries, without exception.

One of Chekhov’s contemporaries noted that if Russia, by some miracle, had suddenly disappeared from the face of the earth, then, based on Chekhov’s stories, it could have been restored to the smallest detail again.

1.2. "Sociological realism" of the writer

Some literary scholars attribute the work of A.P. Chekhov to the direction called “sociological realism”, since Chekhov’s main theme is the problem of the social structure of society and the fate of man in it. This direction explores objective social relationships between people and the conditionality of all other important phenomena of human life by these relationships.

The main object of the writer’s artistic research - “Chekhov’s world” became that in Russian society that connected it into a single state organism, where service relations become the most fundamental relationships between people - the basis of society. A complex hierarchy of people and institutions is emerging, in relationships of subordination (command and subordination) and coordination (subordination). On this basis, a system of power and management, unprecedented in history, is developing in Russia, in which tens of millions of people are involved - all sorts of bosses, leaders, managers, directors, etc., who become masters of the situation, imposing their ideology and psychology, their attitude towards the whole society. all aspects of public life.

Thus, in the entire gigantic picture of Russian life written by Chekhov, it is not difficult to notice the dominant features of Chekhov’s vision of reality, namely, the image of that in people and their relationships that is due to the very fact of their unification into a single state whole, their distribution in this social organism at various levels of the social hierarchy, depending on the social functions they perform.

Thus, the object of close attention of Chekhov, the writer and researcher, became “state-owned” Russia - the environment of bureaucracy and bureaucratic relations, i.e. the relationship of people to the grandiose state apparatus and the relationship of people within this apparatus itself. Therefore, it is no coincidence that it was the official who became one of the central figures (if not the most important) in Chekhov’s work, and representatives of other social categories began to be considered in their bureaucratic-like functions and relationships.

So, we got to know Chekhov in the cultural and social context of his time, with the peculiarities of his creative style.

The main artistic discovery of the writer A.P. Chekhov is a “small genre” in great literature, because in a new artistic form he wrote an epoch-making picture of his time.

A.P. Chekhov is an unrivaled master of storytelling. The ability to fit solutions to large universal human problems into a small text, to show one’s attitude towards them, to convincingly prove one’s ideas - all this is demonstrated by Chekhov in his stories.

Characterizing Chekhov's story as a genre, it should be noted that by its nature it is deeply realistic, but the reality itself reflected in it is so paradoxical that it can be conveyed exclusively in a humorous or satirical form. Chekhov began with entertaining humor, but soon delved into cognitive humor and sociological satire as means of knowledge and expression of their results.

One can imagine Chekhov's depiction of life as a social cross-section of society, where all people are interconnected into a single state whole, being a kind of functions in the system of these relations. It is this “state-owned” Russia that becomes the object of attention of Chekhov - a writer and researcher, and an official - one of the central figures of “Chekhov’s world”.

1.3 “Little man” in the poetry of A.P. C h ekh o v a.

The official was not a new figure in Russian literature, because officialdom is one of the most widespread classes in old Russia. And in Russian literature, legions of officials pass before the reader - from registrars to generals. In Chekhov, he (the official) acquires a completely independent collective image, bearing within itself the many-sided features of the essence designated by the concept of “rank” in human society.

This is how the theme of the “little man” ended in Chekhov’s stories - one of the strongest themes in Russian classical literature, dating back to Pushkin and Gogol, continued and developed by Dostoevsky. With their literary genius they managed to raise the smallness and humiliation of man to tragic heights. The heroes of the works of these writers were people of low social status, completely crushed by life, but trying with all their might to resist the injustice reigning in Russia. Beings destitute and oppressed, these “little people” were indeed worthy of compassion, deprived of the care and protection of the state, “humiliated and insulted” by the power of higher officials.

And here Chekhov is the direct successor of this humanistic tradition of democratic Russian literature, quite clearly showing in his early stories the omnipotence of the police and bureaucratic arbitrariness.

The assimilation of the traditions of Russian classical literature simultaneously with a decisive rethinking of many of them will become a defining feature of Chekhov’s literary position.

Saltykov radically changed his attitude towards bureaucracy.

Shchedrin; in his works, the “little man” becomes a “petty man”, whom Shchedrin ridicules, making him the subject of satire. (Although already in Gogol, bureaucracy began to be depicted in Shchedrin’s tones: for example, in “The Inspector General”).

But it is in Chekhov that the “little man” - the official becomes “petty”, forced to hide, go with the flow, obey the habits and laws established in the community...

In fact, Chekhov no longer depicts small people, but what prevents them from being big - he depicts and generalizes the small in people.

In the 80s of the 19th century, when official relations between people permeated all layers of society, the “little man” lost his characteristic humane qualities, being a person of the established social system - a product and a tool in one person. Having acquired social status by rank, he becomes an official, not only and not necessarily by profession, but by his main function in society.

II. The image of an Official in the stories of A.P. Chekhov.

So, what is he like, an official of Chekhov’s post-reform Russia? We learn about this by analyzing the texts of A.P.’s stories. Chekhov.

Chekhov's refraction of the theme of the “little man” is clearly visible in the story "Death of an Official"(1883)

This is one of the brightest examples of early Chekhov's poetics. The plot of this extremely dynamic short story has become widely known.

A certain Chervyakov, a minor official, while in the theater, accidentally sneezed on the bald head of General Brizzhalov sitting in front, thereby “encroaching” on the “sacred” of the bureaucratic hierarchy... The poor guy was terribly scared, tried to justify himself, did not believe that the general did not attach any significance to this event , began to bother me, made the general angry - and immediately upon arriving home he died of horror...

Chekhov rethought the situation similar to Gogol’s “The Overcoat”: a small official in a clash with his superiors, a “significant person.”

The same type of hero - a little man, humiliated by his social role, who exchanged his own life for fear of the powers that be. However, Chekhov solves the conflict between tyrant and victim, so beloved in our classics, in a new way.

If the general behaves extremely “normally,” then the behavior of the “victim” is implausible, Chervyakov is exaggeratedly stupid, cowardly and annoying - this does not happen in life. The story is built on the principle of sharp exaggeration, beloved by early Chekhov, when the style of “strict realism” is masterfully combined with heightened convention.

The seemingly naive story is, in fact, not so simple: it turns out that death is just a device and a convention, a mockery and an incident, so the story is perceived as quite humorous.

In the clash of laughter and death in the story, laughter triumphs - as a means of exposing the power over people of trifles elevated to a fetish. Official relations here are only a special case of a conditional, invented system of values.

A person’s increased, painful attention to the little things of everyday life stems from the spiritual emptiness and self-inadequacy of the individual, his “smallness” and worthlessness.

The story contains funny, bitter and even tragic things: behavior that is ridiculous to the point of absurdity; bitter awareness of the insignificant value of human life; the tragic understanding that the worms cannot help but grovel, they will always find their brizhals.

And one more thing: I would like to draw attention to the situation of embarrassment, so characteristic of Chekhov’s characters, and the flight from it into the bureaucracy. Of course, such a paradoxical embarrassment... with a fatal outcome clearly goes beyond the scope of everyday realism, but in everyday life the “little man” often escapes from unforeseen circumstances - through bureaucratic relations, when the need (according to a circular) and the want (internal needs) outwardly coincide. This is how a true official is born - a bureaucrat, whose internal “I want” - important, desired, expected - is degenerated into a prescribed “must”, which is externally legitimized, permitted and reliably protects against embarrassment in any circumstances.

The story "Thick and Thin"

An interesting plot is about the meeting of two old friends, former classmates: a fat one and a thin one. While they know nothing about each other, they show themselves as people: “The friends kissed each other three times and fixed their eyes full of tears on each other.” But as soon as they exchanged “personal data,” an impassable social boundary immediately appeared between them. So a friendly meeting turns into a meeting of two unequal ranks.

It is known that in the first edition of the story the motivation was traditional: the “thin” one was humiliated from actual dependence, since the “fat” one turned out to be his direct boss and scolded him “on the job.” Including the story in 1886 in the collection “Motley Stories,” Chekhov reworked it, removing a similar motivation, and placing other accents.

Now, as was the case in “Death of an Official,” the superior retains at least some human traits: “Well, that’s enough! - the fat man winced. “...why is this veneration for rank here!” And the inferior, on the contrary, without any coercion begins to servile and grovel. The mere mention of the high rank of the “fat one” plunges the “thin one” and his entire family into a kind of trance - a kind of sweet self-abasement, an ardent desire to do everything to deprive oneself of any semblance of humanity.

Here there is a substantive divergence and a fundamental difference between Chekhov and Gogol, between Chekhov’s officials and Gogol’s officials. Chekhov brings the analysis of the essence of bureaucratic relations to its logical conclusion. It turns out that the matter is not just a matter of subordination in service, but much deeper - already in the person himself.

Chekhov brings to the forefront in his stories “little people” (represented by the “subtle one”), who not only are not against the reigning world order, but also humiliate themselves - without any demand from above. Simply because life has already formed them into slaves, voluntary executors of someone else’s will.

Thus, the main object of ridicule in the story “Fat and Thin” was a little official who acts meanly and grovels when no one forces him to do so. Showing how the very object of humiliation becomes its mouthpiece, Chekhov asserted a more sober view of the nature of slave psychology, medically harshly diagnosing it at its core as a spiritual illness.

The decline of the sense of personality, the loss of one’s “I” by a person are brought to a critical limit in the story.

I note that such a person does not see a person in another, but only a rank, a certain symbol indicating subordination, and nothing more. Human communication is being replaced by official subordination. The social function turns out to be dominant, absorbing the whole person. He no longer lives in the full sense of the word - “functions”... Isn’t this an Official with a capital C, honoring the rank, not the person?

Actually, the entire system of Chekhov's stories is devoted to the study of various facets of spiritual subordination and slavery, ranging from the simplest (with which we began the analysis) to the most complex.

In Chekhov's narrative, the environment has ceased to be an external force, foreign to man, and the characters depend on it to the extent that they themselves create and reproduce it (shape it with their participation).

Chekhov gave a multiple analysis of the reasons that force people into submission in captivity. It is customary to say that he “exposes” - he castigates servility, covetousness, flattery, betrayal, lies and other vices of social man. But for such an “exposure” you don’t need to be Chekhov.

The deep, hidden meaning of Chekhov’s work and artistic discovery was that as a writer, as a psychologist, as a doctor, he explored the composition of slave blood drop by drop, story by story.

In the last years of his life, Chekhov noted in his notebook: “Nowhere is authority as pressing as among us, Russians, humiliated by centuries of slavery, afraid of freedom... We are overtired of servility and hypocrisy.”

In his stories, Chekhov mercilessly depicts the most varied manifestations of servility as a blatant distortion of human personality. At the same time, the writer captures the blood connection between servility and despotism: one gives rise to, supports and feeds the other.

So, in a story with a very precise title "Two in one" one and the same official manifests himself, without any emotional drama, differently in different circumstances - now as a slave, now as a ruler. The same theme of completely unprincipled conformism, revealing both the serf and the despot in human nature, resounds vividly in the stories "Chameleon"(as an image of a natural opportunist) and "Mask".

Let's take a closer look at the story with the expressive title "The Victory's Celebration"(1883): these are the memoirs of a retired collegiate registrar. The story talks about how Kozulin, who has risen to the ranks - the current “winner” - mocks and mocks his former boss Kuritsyn and his other subordinates, treating them to a rich Maslenitsa dinner...

Kozulin, apparently, is a mediocre official: “for our brother, who does not soar high under the skies, he is great, omnipotent, great wise” - this is what the narrator says; in fact, he cannot boast of a successful career, although he is no longer young, and besides, he is petty and vicious, as his subordinates characterize him. Chekhov's “little man,” even endowed with considerable rank, is also small with all the other human characteristics - both those given to him by nature and those acquired. But in the world of servile subordinates, he really feels omnipotent. Among his guests was his former boss, whom he had served before as prescribed by the state of affairs, and now he is taking low, subtle and evil revenge on him for his humiliation.

Thus, in Chekhov’s portrayal, the official appears as a being who potentially contains both the qualities of a despot and the qualities of a slave, which are revealed only depending on his actual position in the system of command and subordination.

A.P. told us a terrible thing about the man. Chekhov: someone who has once suffered humiliation has already nurtured anger in the embryo, and under certain circumstances will certainly throw out his despotic power on another, and if possible, will take revenge on everyone, without distinguishing between right and wrong, receiving sadistic pleasure from other people’s humiliations (shows out his baser instincts).

The behavior of Kozulin, endowed with power over his guests - subordinates, is inhuman and disgusting: the official does not see a person in his subordinate, in the boss's courage he completely loses his face, revealing the ugly nature of man, his passion for self-affirmation at the expense of the weak, in this case - the subordinate.

It is interesting to note the fact that the former boss, Kuritsyn, lacks this cruelty and passion for trampling on the weak. Perhaps that is why he did not succeed in his career and retired in the lowest rank - a collegiate registrar. The subtitle gives the reader this information, although in the story itself not a single character is named by rank.

Observing Kuritsyn's behavior, we come to the conclusion that he is seeker and cowardly, laughs with others at the humiliation of the weak, and is himself ready to humiliate himself for a petty position. Playing the jester along with his elderly father on the orders of his boss, he thinks with satisfaction: “I should be the clerk’s assistant!” And, remembering after many years the formidable boss, he mentally trembles before him... Here it is, the main reason for the possibility of tyranny of any scale, the soil on which only lawlessness and arbitrariness can grow - this is the willingness to perceive them and continue, to obey them. For what?

In “official” Russia, a person experiences the detrimental influence of the social structure: a person’s existence is devalued, his social status is important, the improvement of which can only be achieved by climbing the career ladder, making a successful career. So rank, another title, awards became a way to transition to a new quality of life, the daring dream of which lives in every “little person.”

Chekhov has no equal in Russian literature in depicting how a person's social position determines all other aspects of life (including family, companionship and love relationships), becomes the main human function, and everything else is derivative.

Returning to the story "The Victory's Celebration", I would like to note that in this small and seemingly absurd plot, Chekhov with amazing vigilance shows us the origins of tyranny: Kozulin does not kill people or torture them, since he is just the head of the office, not a concentration camp. But he has no moral brakes. Different - only forms of torture...

Probably, Chekhov could not foresee the terrible monsters, fascists and mass murderers on whom the 20th century turned out to be so generous.

Already in the title of the story, a vile human phenomenon is indicated - triumph over the vanquished, i.e. dependent people. This sounds very alarming for our time, because victory can only be achieved through confrontation, a war that people are constantly waging at different levels...

Although Chekhov was never an official, this unattractive historical and unartistic literary stereotype turns in his stories into visible and vivid images (which even became household names), embodying the characteristic features of this class.

It is important to note that in Chekhov’s writings there is a description of the tendency towards the bureaucraticization of the entire Russian society, the transformation of the mass of people who were not formally considered officials into something official-like. Chekhov created images of not just officials by profession, but images of bureaucratic relations in all spheres of life and in all layers of society.

Let's turn to the stories.

Ranks and orders appear in Chekhov's stories, perhaps more often than in other writers. One of the early stories is called "Order".

A high school teacher with the rank of collegiate registrar named Lev Pustyakov goes to dinner with a merchant he knows, wearing someone else’s Order of Stanislav, because the owner “terribly loves orders” and intends to make a splash. But while visiting, he had to face another “furor”: his colleague, finding himself at the table opposite, also put on the undeserved Order of Anna. The conflict was thus successfully resolved, but our hero was very upset that he did not wear the Order of Vladimir.

Chekhov's ability to depict a person's character in one short stroke and turn a funny scene into a thoughtful parable is amazing! After all, teacher Pustyakov (!) not only wants to please the tastes of the owner of the house - he is infected with the all-encompassing disease of Russian bureaucracy - Khlestakovism.

This desire to look more significant than one actually is, and the thirst for undeserved honors also characterize our modern officials - bureaucrats: probably, each of us in everyday life, applying even for a trifling certificate - a piece of paper, experienced the pressure of apparent significance and dependence on ordinary officials - performers. After all, the significance of a person in the administrative world is often determined by the ability to imitate his significance by various means, not necessarily symbols of power. Not to be, but to appear - this is such bureaucratic vulgarity.

"A story that's hard to find a title"- another curious scene where the main character, the official Ottyagaev, a fiery speaker, having begun his toast, so to speak, to the peace (“There are thefts, thefts, theft, robbery, extortion all around…”), ends it to health (“… let’s drink to the health of our boss, patron and benefactor...!"). This change of tone, caused by the appearance of the boss himself at the dinner table, as well as the unrestrained praise and ostentatious democracy of his speech, make the attentive reader understand the true value of this official. What seems to be a beautiful impulse in words to forget about honoring rank, to unite everyone on equal terms, in fact demonstrates flattery and servility to one’s own boss and the desire to at least mentally soar to higher spheres, bringing one’s friend closer to much higher ranks. Moreover, it is not a fact that in reality he will not show his power over his subordinates, because it is known that inflated significance compensates for its failure at the expense of the weaker.

It is also difficult to find a “name” for the hero of the story: a demagogue plus the whole servile and pharisaical set. Plus... my own awkwardness and bewilderment. Empty man!

Story " Experienced" I also suggested taking a plot for the article.

The plot of this story is simple: officials of one institution put their signatures on the attendance sheet for the New Year. When one official carefully signed his name, another told him that he could easily ruin him by placing a squiggle or a blot next to his signature. The first official was horrified by this, since this seemingly trifle could really ruin his career, as happened with a colleague who threatened him...

Interpreting this situation to Soviet reality, the author argues that in Soviet institutions officials do more dirty tricks to each other than Chekhov’s heroes, and in the most sophisticated form, while hiding behind concern for their neighbors, the collective, the country, and all progressive humanity. Soviet intellectual folklore reflected this in countless anecdotes and jokes.

I will cite a few well-known ones: if under capitalism man is a wolf to man, then under socialism comrade is a wolf; a decent person differs from a scoundrel only in that he commits meanness towards loved ones without experiencing pleasure from it; I’m the boss - you’re a fool, you’re the boss - I’m a fool; do not do good - you will not receive evil; initiative is punishable; a holy place is never empty... Isn’t it familiar, almost Chekhovian?

Our Russian history and literature after Chekhov, and my own observations in modern life confirm that Chekhov was surprisingly right: “How little it takes to knock off a person!”

2.1 The tragedy of the little things in life

It was precisely his interest in the bureaucratic - bureaucratic aspect of the life of society that allowed Chekhov to open up for literature the area of ​​phenomena that seemed insignificant, everyday trifles and trifles, but under Chekhov’s watchful gaze they revealed their decisive role in the creation of a certain system and way of life.

The subject of interest and artistic comprehension of Chekhov becomes a new layer of life, unknown to Russian literature. He reveals to the reader everyday life, a series of routine everyday affairs and considerations familiar to everyone, passing by the consciousness of the majority.

Ordinary, everyday life for Chekhov is not something secondary in comparison with some other human life, but the main sphere of existence of his contemporaries.

Everyday life in his stories is not the background of the spiritual quest of his heroes, but the very way of life, penetrating into the way of life - a mediator in a person’s relationship with the world.

He wrote private life - this was precisely what became Chekhov’s artistic discovery. Under his pen, literature became a mirror of a moment that matters only in the life and fate of one specific person.

Reflections on Chekhov's stories led researchers to the conclusion that the everyday, “all this habitually current everyday life,” is not necessarily a source of drama. That special life drama discovered by Chekhov, for the expression of which he needed new artistic forms, is focused in a person, in the state of his consciousness.

Chekhov's interest in the most ordinary person is of a very special kind; it cannot be reduced to denunciation of vulgarity. Chekhov's approach is more complex: what and how does an ordinary person bring himself into the everyday course of life, and through everyday life - into all forms of human relations.

In the everyday life of an ordinary private person, the writer sees far from a private meaning: in Chekhov, a person is tested by his attitude to his own and general existence, he himself participates in the “formation of life.”

Chekhov's private stories are full of tragedy and artistic bewilderment. The writer’s stories about fat and thin people, about chameleons and small children striving for fame and rank, about full-time and freelance law enforcement officers (this whole “parade” of officials presented in my essay) created a picture of reality full of social meanness and moral ugliness. Exploring the phenomenon of bureaucracy in Chekhov’s Russia, we saw the “components” of the lives of Chekhov’s characters in their bureaucratic guise - and we can join the writer’s verdict: “You live badly, gentlemen!”

With all his work, Chekhov shows that the main source of evil in Russian life is dominant social relations and opposes the distorted forms of Russian statehood that suppress people. Chekhov considers the existing social system of life to be abnormal, unnatural in the sense that it gives rise to phenomena that do not correspond to human ideals of goodness, goodness, justice - thereby breaking and distorting the nature of man himself.

This idea is expressed with utmost force - and brought to the point of absurdity - in the story "Ward №6"; in it, smart and highly moral people end up in a madhouse, and scoundrels dominate society. “In “Ward No. 6,” wrote N. Leskov, “the general order in the country is depicted in miniature. Everywhere - ward No. 6. It's Russia". The desire of one of the heroes of the work for society to realize its shortcomings and be horrified is realized in the story with great force.

Chekhov does not try to explain the reigning troubles by immediate social causes. After all, the social ill-being that plagues Russia is only the initial impetus for the leveling of the individual. But it is the man himself who completes everything.

Let's go back to the story "Gooseberry" from the small trilogy “About Love”. For the official - nobleman Nikolai Ivanovich, the gooseberry symbolizes an idyllic, pastoral life, which is in every way the opposite of social life. He hoped to break out of the bureaucratic world of his office and become a man free from class restrictions. But he turned into a slave of his own dreams, jumped from one class niche to another: he was an official, but became a landowner. He never became a free man. Before us is a typical story of the degradation of the human personality, which voluntarily dissolved in social conditions.

The hero's fear and cowardice in the face of circumstances, the mystical, almost religious habit of everyday existence turned out to be stronger than love in the story “About Love.”

As one of Chekhov’s heroes noted (in the story “Fear”), the main thing that is scary is “everyday life”, from which it is impossible to hide. In the same series is the spiritual death of Doctor Startsev, who turned into a pathetic philistine Ionych (in the story of the same name), and the fate of Nikitin (“Literature Teacher”), who wants to break with the world of boring, insignificant people, but is not yet able to do this .

It is difficult to change your lifestyle. In Chekhov's stories we observe a decline in a person's sense of personality and personal responsibility for his life and destiny, when it is easier to submit to the prevailing relations in society, guided by ready-made, generally accepted rules.

“No one understood as clearly and subtly as Anton Pavlovich the tragedy of the little things in life; no one before him knew how to so mercilessly truthfully paint people a shameful and dreary picture of their lives in the dull chaos of petty-bourgeois everyday life,” wrote A.M. Bitter.

In Chekhov's picture of life, a person is both an object of influence (“the environment is stuck”) and a subject of action, accordingly shaping this very environment in which he lives.

Chekhov, more keenly than many others, saw and masterfully demonstrated in his work the depersonalization of human individuality, pointing out the “poverty of human resources,” internal inconsistency, and the alienation of man from his true nature. As a diagnostician, Chekhov points out the cause of this disease - the human soul.

It is precisely in the absence of spiritual independence that there is a danger of forgetting oneself in a social role, which is what happens to Chekhov’s hero, who lost himself in official self-realization, his name is an official.

A. Zinoviev believes that from a sociological point of view, the most significant thing in Chekhov’s work is the discovery of the power of nonentities and insignificance (“everyday life”) as the basis of the foundations of life in a state-organized society.

As many years of experience in Soviet history have shown, the power of “little things” and the power of nonentities not only did not weaken in post-revolutionary Russia, but, on the contrary, strengthened and grew in every possible way, capturing all spheres of social life. Moreover, those unsightly qualities that Chekhov portrayed in the images of petty officials, completely crushed by life, in Soviet reality developed especially strongly in the most educated and highest-ranking part of society, which has real power. Thus, Chekhov came across such human relationships and the human qualities determined by them, which are reproduced at different levels, regardless of the social system. And their nature, as Chekhov tells us, is in man himself, the human personality, creating his own and social life.

2.2 Artistic visions of a better future

There are important lines in Chekhov’s notebook: “New forms in literature are always followed by new forms of life (harbingers).” In Chekhov's “picture of a single epochal consciousness” (L. Ginzburg), with all the diversity of its states, one thing was expressed: the readiness of life and thought to move into “new forms, higher and more reasonable.” Reasonable!

In his worldview, Chekhov is close to V.I. Vernadsky - scientist, thinker, humanist, who saw the development of Russian civilization through the noosphere, i.e. intelligent human activity. “The most difficult thing is the brain of a statesman,” says Vernadsky, meaning the ability of a statesman to have reasonable, morally oriented thinking, i.e. official

Therefore, the phenomenon of Russian bureaucracy, understanding its nature and problems are extremely important for the civilized development of a society governed by the state. And the figure of the official in this context becomes key, because all positive changes in the social system are possible not through administrative measures, but only through the person performing its functions.

Chekhov's creative development followed the line of an increasingly in-depth analysis of social reality, and his diagnostic picture of life in post-reform Russia amazes with its harsh truthfulness and harshness of view. Yes, society is not healthy. The person is also sick.

Knowing that the patient is doomed, Doctor Chekhov not only sympathizes with a hopelessly ill person, but experiences his fate as his own, while giving hope to everyone, acting as a healer of incurable diseases.

Chekhov's understanding of the completeness of human self-realization is addressed to his moral resources. The creator of a new faith - faith in man, Chekhov rightly views everything that divides people as transitory.

Chekhov fulfilled his great artistic calling, noted by A.M. Gorky - to illuminate the prose of the everyday existence of people from a higher point of view.

The greatness of Chekhov lies in the fact that he wrote not only about the influence of the environment, the social structure on a person, but also about a person’s duty to resist this influence, moreover, to overcome this dependence.

Man is inseparable from social existence, and the path to a fair social structure is at the same time the path to the emancipation of the spiritual capabilities of people - these are two sides of a single process of the progressive development of human civilization. By caring about justice, people humanize themselves. And any deviation from this wise law of life is at the same time anti-human and anti-social and leads to the strengthening of injustice and at the same time to the destruction and death of the human person.

Chekhov, the great seeker of the truth about man and for man, the great citizen of his Fatherland, wrapped in impenetrable clothes of irony, is concerned with learning himself and teaching others to look for answers.

Exactly - learn to search! Not to find out the answers, but to come to the answers, learn to find them at all times in this changing and multifaceted life.

The writer’s artistic insight into a better future inspires hope and faith in the triumph of Homo Sapiens and the discovery of “new forms of life” in our Russian reality.

Conclusion.

As a result of the research, the main object of which was “Chekhov’s world” and the heroes inhabiting it, we, first of all, develop a new vision of the work of A.P. Chekhov - in the vein of sociological realism. This allowed me to identify as the central figure of “Chekhov’s world” an official who acts on behalf of the authorities and who has become the personification of the era.

“Russia,” wrote Chekhov, “is a government country.” And with amazing artistic power, using the example of bureaucracy, he showed that a person’s position in the social system and hierarchy of Russian society began to turn into a factor that determines all other aspects of a person’s life, and the relationship of command and subordination became the basis for all other relationships. Therefore, among the Chekhov heroes discussed in the essay are not just officials by profession, but various forms of bureaucratic relations, called the “Chekhov world”, where Chekhov managed to create a picture of the tragicomedy of human existence in a world of illusory values, worries and anxieties, unprecedented in Russian and world literature .

Following the logic of revealing the topic, first I looked at the historical aspect

problems against which the writer Chekhov creates his stories. This is very important for understanding the problem of bureaucracy and its competent interpretation in Chekhov’s works.

A critical review of the sources used allows you to see and evaluate different views and approaches to the topic, for their subsequent use, rethinking and generalization.

I thoughtfully began the main part of the article with the presentation of Chekhov in the cultural and social context of his time in order to show the originality of the writer’s talent, the special artistic means and methods characteristic of his work and with the help of which he was able to identify and skillfully capture the phenomenal phenomenon of Russian life - bureaucracy.

The main task of the study - to show the many-sided image of bureaucracy in Chekhov's stories - was solved systematically and consistently.

The theme of the “little man,” traditional in the Russian literary tradition, found a unique refraction in Chekhov’s stories. Gaining social status by rank, Chekhov's little man becomes an essentially petty official - not only and not necessarily by profession, but by his main function in society, losing his humane human qualities.

For a direct analysis of the texts of Chekhov’s stories, revealing the image of an official, E. Kazakevich’s phrase “The writer tells - his story proves” seemed to me successful. The interpretation of each of the stories in this part of the essay was built as evidence of a certain thesis.

Through Chekhov's short and seemingly unpretentious texts, the pitiful, small and petty in the nature of a social person, who has completely lost himself in the real world of social conventions and priorities, is revealed in all his nature. It is this moral “break” of a small person in a social environment hostile to him, the loss of humanity in a person in various forms, that I reasonably explored in Chekhov’s stories.

It was impossible to ignore another very important aspect of Chekhov’s exploration of the theme of bureaucracy, since this was precisely what became the writer’s artistic discovery, the subject of his attention and comprehension. Chekhov managed to discover the decisive role of everyday life in the creation of the entire system and way of life of a person. It is here that the main tragedy of human existence, the “little things in life” kill the humanity in a person... This is how the common disease of bureaucracy is revealed - self-forgetfulness in a social role, loss of human essence in official self-realization.

Thus, in the main evidentiary part of the article, we carefully and substantively examined the many-sided image of the official attested in Chekhov’s stories. It seems to me that the main goal of my work - revealing the true nature of bureaucracy, this phenomenal phenomenon in the life of Russian society - has been achieved. My personal knowledge of bureaucracy has been significantly enriched precisely through Chekhov’s stories, which reveal the deep nature of this phenomenon inherent in the person himself.

I would like to note that I attempted an integrated approach to this topic in Chekhov’s work, based on the analysis of scattered information in different sources, reinterpreted and generalized.

And finally, the logical conclusion of the topic will be a perspective vision and philosophical understanding of the problem of bureaucracy - through Chekhov.

The phenomenon of Russian bureaucracy, understanding its nature and problems are extremely important for the reform and development of our society on reasonable principles, bequeathed to us by Chekhov. And with renewed vigor, among universal human problems, “Chekhov’s problems” “highlighted” - and turned out to be central! After all, the transformation of the Russian state, its social reorganization on a reasonable basis is possible only through a person, and a state person - an official - in the first place.

For a hundred years now, Chekhov has not been with us, but Chekhov’s message to us living in Russia in the 21st century is very important for the construction of “new forms of life” in our Russian reality.

List of used literature

I. Chekhov A.P. Selected works. In 2 volumes. T. 1, 2. - M., 1979.

2.Berdnikov T.P. A.P. Chekhov. Ideological and creative quests. - M.: Artist. lit., 1984. -511 p.

Z. Gromov M.P. A book about Chekhov. - M.: Sovremennik, 1989. - 382 p. “The fans grew up. Literature").

4. Kapitanova L.A. A.P. Chekhov in life and work: Textbook. allowance. -M.: Rus. word, 2001. - 76 p.

5. Kuleshov V.I. Life and work of AL 1. Chekhov: Essay. M.: Det. lit., 1982. - 175 p. .

6.Linkov V.Ya. The artistic world of A.P.’s prose Chekhov. M.: Publishing house. Moscow State University, 1982.- 128 p.

7. Tyupa V.I. The artistry of Chekhov's story. - M.: Higher. school, 1982. - 133 p.

The official was not a new figure in Russian literature, because officialdom is one of the most widespread classes in old Russia. And in Russian literature, legions of officials pass before the reader - from registrars to generals.

This image of a poor official (Molchalin) is presented in the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".

Molchalin is one of the most prominent representatives of Famus society. However, if Famusov, Khlestova and some other characters are living fragments of the “past century,” then Molchalin is a man of the same generation as Chatsky. But, unlike Chatsky, Molchalin is a staunch conservative, his views coincide with Famusov’s worldview. Just like Famusov, Molchalin considers dependence “on others” to be the basic law of life. Molchalin is a typical “average” person both in intelligence and in his ambitions. But he has “his own talent”: he is proud of his qualities - “moderation and accuracy.” Molchalin's worldview and behavior are strictly dictated by his position in the official hierarchy. He is modest and helpful, because “in ranks... small,” he cannot do without “patrons,” even if he has to depend entirely on their will. Molchalin is the antipode of Chatsky not only in his beliefs, but also in the nature of his attitude towards Sophia. Molchalin only skillfully pretends that he loves the girl, although, by his own admission, he does not find “anything enviable” in her. Molchalin is in love “by position”, “at the pleasure of the daughter of such a man” as Famusov, “who feeds and waters, // And sometimes gives rank...” The loss of Sophia’s love does not mean Molchalin’s defeat. Although he made an unforgivable mistake, he managed to get away with it. It is impossible to stop the career of a person like Molchalin - this is the meaning of the author's attitude towards the hero. Chatsky rightly noted in the first act that Molchalin “will reach known degrees,” for “The silent are blissful in the world.”

A completely different image of a poor official was examined by A.S. Pushkin in his “St. Petersburg story” “The Bronze Horseman”. In contrast to Molchalin’s aspirations, the desires of Evgeny, the protagonist of the poem, are modest: he dreams of quiet family happiness, his future is associated with his beloved girl Parasha (remember that Molchalin’s courtship of Sophia is due solely to his desire to obtain a higher rank). Dreaming of simple (“philistine”) human happiness, Evgeniy does not think at all about high ranks; the hero is one of countless officials “without a nickname” who “serve somewhere” without thinking about the meaning of their service. It is important to note that for A.S. For Pushkin, what made Evgeny a “little man” is unacceptable: the isolation of existence in a close circle of family concerns, isolation from his own and historical past. However, despite this, Eugene is not humiliated by Pushkin; on the contrary, he, unlike the “idol on a bronze horse,” is endowed with a heart and soul, which is of great importance for the author of the poem. He is capable of dreaming, grieving, “fearing” for the fate of his beloved, and exhausting himself from torment. When grief bursts into his measured life (the death of Parasha during a flood), he seems to wake up, he wants to find those to blame for the death of his beloved. Eugene blames Peter I, who built the city in this place, for his troubles, and therefore blames the entire state machine, entering into an unequal battle. In this confrontation, Eugene, the “little man,” is defeated: “deafened by the noise” of his own grief, he dies. In the words of G.A. Gukovsky, “with Evgeniy... enters high literature... a tragic hero.” Thus, the tragic aspect of the theme of a poor official unable to resist the state (an insoluble conflict between the individual and the state) was important for Pushkin.

N.V. also addressed the topic of the poor official. Gogol. In his works (“The Overcoat”, “The Inspector General”) he gives his interpretation of the image of a poor official (Bashmachkin, Khlestakov), while if Bashmachkin is close in spirit to Pushkin’s Evgeniy (“The Bronze Horseman”), then Khlestakov is a kind of “successor” to Molchalin Griboedova. Like Molchalin, Khlestakov, the hero of the play “The Inspector General,” has extraordinary adaptability. He easily assumes the role of an important person, realizing that he is being mistaken for another person: he meets the officials, accepts the request, and begins, as befits a “significant person,” to “scold” the owners for nothing, causing them to “shake from fear." Khlestakov is not able to enjoy power over people; he simply repeats what he himself probably experienced more than once in his St. Petersburg department. The unexpected role transforms Khlestakov, making him an intelligent, powerful and strong-willed person. Talking about his studies in St. Petersburg, Khlestakov involuntarily betrays his “desire for honors apart from merit,” which is similar to Molchalin’s attitude towards service: he wants to “take the rewards and have fun.” However, Khlestakov, unlike Molchalin, is much more carefree and flighty; his “lightness” “in thoughts... extraordinary” is created with the help of a large number of exclamations, while the hero of Griboyedov’s play is more cautious. The main idea of ​​N.V. Gogol is that even the imaginary bureaucratic “greatness” can set in motion generally intelligent people, turning them into obedient puppets.

Another aspect of the theme of the poor official is considered by Gogol in his story “The Overcoat”. Its main character, Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin, evokes an ambiguous attitude towards himself. On the one hand, the hero cannot but evoke pity and sympathy, but on the other hand, hostility and disgust. Being a man of a narrow-minded, undeveloped mind, Bashmachkin expresses himself “mostly in prepositions, adverbs and particles that absolutely do not have any meaning,” but his main occupation is the tedious rewriting of papers, a task with which the hero is quite satisfied. In the department where he serves, officials “do not show him any respect,” making evil jokes at Bashmachkin’s expense. The main event in his life is the purchase of an overcoat, and when it is stolen from him, Bashmachkin forever loses the meaning of life.

Gogol shows that in bureaucratic St. Petersburg, where “significant persons” rule, coldness and indifference reign to the fate of thousands of shoemakers, forced to eke out a miserable existence, which deprives them of the opportunity to develop spiritually, makes them wretched, slave creatures, “eternal titular advisers.” Thus, the author’s attitude towards the hero is difficult to determine unambiguously: he not only sympathizes with Bashmachkin, but also sneers at his hero (the presence in the text of contemptuous intonations caused by the insignificance of Bashmachkin’s existence).

So, Gogol showed that the spiritual world of a poor official is extremely meager. F.M. Dostoevsky made an important addition to the understanding of the character of the “little man”, for the first time revealing the full complexity of the inner world of this hero. The writer was interested not in the social and everyday, but in the moral and psychological aspect of the theme of the poor official.

Depicting the “humiliated and insulted,” Dostoevsky used the principle of contrast between the external and the internal, between a person’s humiliating social position and his increased self-esteem. Unlike Evgeny (“The Bronze Horseman”) and Bashmachkin (“The Overcoat”), Dostoevsky’s hero Marmeladov is a man with great ambitions. He acutely experiences his undeserved “humiliation,” believing that he is “offended” by life, and therefore demanding more from life than it can give him. The absurdity of Marmeladov’s behavior and mental state unpleasantly strikes Raskolnikov at their first meeting in the tavern: the official behaves proudly and even arrogantly: he looks at visitors “with a tinge of some arrogant disdain, as if at people of lower status and development, with whom he has no business talking” , In Marmeladov, the writer showed the spiritual degradation of “poor officials.” They are incapable of either rebellion or humility. Their pride is so exorbitant that humility is impossible for them. However, their “rebellion” is tragicomic in nature. So for Marmeladov these are drunken rantings, “tavern conversations with various strangers.” This is not Eugene’s fight with the Bronze Horseman and not Bashmachkin’s appearance to a “significant person” after death. Marmeladov is almost proud of his “pigness” (“I am a born beast”), happily telling Raskolnikov that he even drank his wife’s “stockings”, “with rude dignity” reporting that Katerina Ivanovna “tears out his hair.” Marmeladov’s obsessive “self-flagellation” has nothing to do with true humility. Thus, Dostoevsky has a poor official-philosopher, a thinking hero, with a highly developed moral sense, constantly experiencing dissatisfaction with himself, the world and those around him. It is important to note that F.M. Dostoevsky in no way justifies his hero, it is not “the environment that has stuck”, but the man himself is guilty of his actions, for he bears personal responsibility for them. Saltykov-Shchedrin radically changed his attitude towards bureaucracy; in his works, the “little man” becomes a “petty man”, whom Shchedrin ridicules, making him the subject of satire. (Although already in Gogol, bureaucracy began to be depicted in Shchedrin’s tones: for example, in “The Inspector General”). We will focus on Chekhov's “officials”. Interest in the topic of bureaucracy not only did not fade away from Chekhov, but on the contrary, it flared up, reflected in the stories, in his new vision, but also without ignoring past traditions. After all, “...the more inimitable and original the artist, the deeper and more obvious his connection with previous artistic experience.”

The main character of N. V. Gogol’s play “The Inspector General” is the district town of N. This is a collective image that includes both the city itself and its inhabitants, their morals, customs, outlook on life, etc.
The work is preceded by an epigraph taken by the playwright from folklore: “There is no point in blaming the mirror if your face is crooked.” Thus, the author warns readers that everything he described is the truth, and not fiction or, especially, slander.

Gogol depicts the life of a typical city, of which there were many throughout Russia. It is no coincidence that he does not give it a specific name. The author has in mind a certain city, of which there are many examples. We learn that it is located in the very outback (“from here, even if you ride for three years, you won’t reach any state”). The “set” of officials leading the city is completely typical: a judge, a trustee of charitable institutions, a superintendent of schools, a postmaster. And all this, like a little king, is ruled by the mayor.
The author shows us the life of all spheres of the city, how they are managed. And we understand that everything here is absolutely typical for Russia and is relevant today.
It is important that we get a fairly complete picture of the county town. In our head we have an idea of ​​it as an architectural object. The main action of the play takes place in the mayor's house. In addition, we are transported to the tavern where the imaginary auditor stopped. From the remarks and words of the characters, we get an idea of ​​the meager furnishings in Khlestakov’s room.
In addition, from the characters’ dialogues we learn other information about the city: about the bridge, about the old fence near the shoemaker, about that and near this fence “a lot of rubbish is piled up,” about the booth where pies are sold. We also know that in the city there is a school, government offices, a post office, a hospital, and so on. But all this is in an abandoned and deplorable state, because officials do not care about this at all. They are primarily interested in their own benefit. Based on this, all city management is built.
In addition to the bureaucracy, N. is also inhabited by other classes. The auditor, giving orders, speaks about citizenship, clergy, merchants, and philistines. From the very beginning, we learn that all these classes suffer oppression and insults from officials: “What did you do with the merchant Chernyaev - huh? He gave you two arshins of cloth for your uniform, and you stole the whole thing. Look! You’re not taking it according to rank!”
We get to know representatives of different classes directly. They all come with requests to the “official” Khlestakov. First, the merchants “beat him with their foreheads.” They complain about the mayor, who “inflicts such insults that it is impossible to describe.” It is important that merchants are ready to give bribes, but “everything must be in moderation.”
In addition, a locksmith and a non-commissioned officer’s wife come to Khlestakov. And they also complain about the mayor, who does whatever he wants in the city. And nothing dictates him - neither the law nor his conscience.
Thus, we understand that all residents of the city, regardless of their social and financial status, have one thing in common - the brazen excesses of officials.
We are convinced of them throughout the play. The very first sin of the mayor and his charges is bribery and theft. All officials care only about their pockets, thinking little about the inhabitants of the city. Even at the very beginning of the play, we see how the sick are treated in N., how children are taught, how justice works there. Patients in the city are “dying like flies,” public places are a mess and dirty, school teachers are drunk every day, and so on. We understand that city residents are not considered people - this is just a means to live well and fill your wallet.
But the officials themselves are not happy with life in N. We see that the mayor, like his family, dreams of St. Petersburg. This is where real life is! And Khlestakov, with his fictitious stories, awakens these dreams in Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky, makes him hope.