Criticism of the work Dead Souls. Critics about the poem “Dead Souls” and the work of N

« Dead Souls" - a poem for the ages. The plasticity of the depicted reality, the comic nature of situations and the artistic skill of N.V. Gogol paints an image of Russia not only of the past, but also of the future. Grotesque satirical reality in harmony with patriotic notes create an unforgettable melody of life that sounds through the centuries.

Collegiate adviser Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov goes to distant provinces to buy serfs. However, he is not interested in people, but only in the names of the dead. This is necessary to submit the list to the board of trustees, which “promises” a lot of money. For a nobleman with so many peasants, all doors were open. To implement his plans, he pays visits to landowners and officials of the city of NN. They all reveal their selfish nature, so the hero manages to get what he wants. He is also planning a profitable marriage. However, the result is disastrous: the hero is forced to flee, as his plans become publicly known thanks to the landowner Korobochka.

History of creation

N.V. Gogol believed A.S. Pushkin as his teacher, who “gave” the grateful student a story about Chichikov’s adventures. The poet was sure that only Nikolai Vasilyevich, who has a unique talent from God, could realize this “idea”.

The writer loved Italy and Rome. In the land of the great Dante, he began work on a book suggesting a three-part composition in 1835. The poem should have been like " Divine Comedy"Dante, depict the hero's descent into hell, his journey into purgatory and the resurrection of his soul in paradise.

The creative process continued for six years. The idea of ​​a grandiose painting, depicting not only “all Rus'” present, but also the future, revealed “the untold riches of the Russian spirit.” In February 1837, Pushkin died, “ sacred testament” which for Gogol becomes “Dead Souls”: “Not a single line was written without me imagining him before me.” The first volume was completed in the summer of 1841, but did not immediately find its reader. The censorship was outraged by “The Tale of Captain Kopeikin”, and the title led to bewilderment. I had to make concessions by starting the title with the intriguing phrase “The Adventures of Chichikov.” Therefore, the book was published only in 1842.

After some time, Gogol writes the second volume, but, dissatisfied with the result, burns it.

Meaning of the name

The title of the work evokes conflicting interpretations. The oxymoron technique used gives rise to numerous questions to which you want to get answers as quickly as possible. The title is symbolic and ambiguous, so the “secret” is not revealed to everyone.

In the literal sense, “dead souls” are representatives of the common people who have passed into another world, but are still listed as their masters. The concept is gradually being rethought. The “form” seems to “come to life”: real serfs, with their habits and shortcomings, appear before the reader’s gaze.

Characteristics of the main characters

1. Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov is a “mediocre gentleman.” Somewhat cloying manners in dealing with people are not without sophistication. Well-mannered, neat and delicate. “Not handsome, but not bad-looking, not... fat, nor.... thin..." Calculating and careful. He collects unnecessary trinkets in his little chest: maybe it will come in handy! Seeks profit in everything. The generation of the worst sides of an enterprising and energetic person of a new type, opposed to landowners and officials. We wrote about him in more detail in the essay "".
2. Manilov - “knight of the void”. A blond "sweet" talker with "blue eyes." He covers up the poverty of thought and avoidance of real difficulties with a beautiful phrase. He lacks living aspirations and any interests. His faithful companions are fruitless fantasy and thoughtless chatter.
3. The box is “club-headed”. A vulgar, stupid, stingy and tight-fisted nature. She cut herself off from everything around her, shutting herself up in her estate - the “box”. She turned into a stupid and greedy woman. Limited, stubborn and unspiritual.
4. Nozdryov - " historical person" He can easily lie whatever he wants and deceive anyone. Empty, absurd. He thinks of himself as broad-minded. However, his actions expose a careless, chaotic, weak-willed and at the same time arrogant, shameless “tyrant.” Record holder for getting into tricky and ridiculous situations.
5. Sobakevich is “a patriot of the Russian stomach.” Outwardly it resembles a bear: clumsy and irrepressible. Completely incapable of understanding the most basic things. A special type of “storage device” that can quickly adapt to the new requirements of our time. He is not interested in anything except running a household.
6. we described in the essay of the same name. .

Plyushkin - “a hole in humanity.” A creature of unknown gender. A striking example of moral decline, which has completely lost its natural appearance. The only character (except Chichikov) who has a biography that “reflects” the gradual process of personality degradation. A complete nonentity. Plyushkin’s manic hoarding “pours out” into “cosmic” proportions. And the more this passion takes possession of him, the less of a person remains in him. We analyzed his image in detail in the essay

Genre and composition Initially, the work began as an adventurous picaresque novel. But the breadth of the events described and the historical truthfulness, as if “compressed” together, gave rise to “talking” about the realistic method. Making precise remarks, inserting philosophical arguments, addressing different generations

The composition is circular: the chaise, which entered the city of NN at the beginning of the story, leaves it after all the vicissitudes that happened to the hero. Episodes are woven into this “ring”, without which the integrity of the poem is violated. The first chapter provides a description of the provincial city of NN and local officials. From the second to the sixth chapters, the author introduces readers to the landowner estates of Manilov, Korobochka, Nozdryov, Sobakevich and Plyushkin. The seventh - tenth chapters are a satirical depiction of officials, the execution of completed transactions. The string of events listed above ends with a ball, where Nozdryov “narrates” about Chichikov’s scam. The reaction of society to his statement is unambiguous - gossip, which, like a snowball, is overgrown with fables that have found refraction, including in the short story (“The Tale of Captain Kopeikin”) and the parable (about Kif Mokievich and Mokiya Kifovich). The introduction of these episodes allows us to emphasize that the fate of the fatherland directly depends on the people living in it. You cannot look indifferently at the disgrace happening around you. Certain forms of protest are maturing in the country. The eleventh chapter is a biography of the hero who forms the plot, explaining what motivated him when committing this or that act.

The connecting compositional thread is the image of the road (you can learn more about this by reading the essay “ » ), symbolizing the path that the state takes in its development “under the modest name of Rus'.”

Why does Chichikov need dead souls?

Chichikov is not just cunning, but also pragmatic. His sophisticated mind is ready to “make candy” out of nothing. Not having sufficient capital, he, being a good psychologist, having gone through a good life school, mastering the art of “flattering everyone” and fulfilling his father’s behest to “save a penny,” starts a great speculation. It consists of a simple deception of “those in power” in order to “warm up their hands”, in other words, to gain a huge amount of money, thereby providing for themselves and their future family, which Pavel Ivanovich dreamed of.

Names of those bought for next to nothing dead peasants were entered into a document that Chichikov could take to the treasury chamber under the guise of collateral in order to obtain a loan. He would pawn the serfs like a brooch in a pawnshop, and could re-mortgage them all his life, since none of the officials checked the physical condition of the people. For this money, the businessman would buy real workers and an estate, and would live in a big way, enjoying the favor of the nobles, because the nobles measured the wealth of the landowner in the number of souls (peasants were then called “souls” in noble slang). In addition, Gogol's hero hoped to gain trust in society and profitably marry a rich heiress.

main idea

Hymn to the homeland and people, distinguishing feature whose hard work sounds on the pages of the poem. The masters of golden hands became famous for their inventions and their creativity. The Russian man is always “rich in invention.” But there are also those citizens who hinder the development of the country. These are vicious officials, ignorant and inactive landowners and swindlers like Chichikov. For their own good, the good of Russia and the world, they must take the path of correction, realizing the ugliness of their inner world. To do this, Gogol mercilessly ridicules them throughout the entire first volume, but in subsequent parts of the work the author intended to show the resurrection of the spirit of these people using the example of the main character. Perhaps he felt the falseness of the subsequent chapters, lost faith that his dream was feasible, so he burned it along with the second part " Dead souls».

Nevertheless, the author showed that the main wealth of the country is the broad soul of the people. It is no coincidence that this word is included in the title. The writer believed that the revival of Russia would begin with the revival of human souls, pure, untainted by any sins, selfless. Not just those who believe in the free future of the country, but those who make a lot of effort on this fast road to happiness. “Rus, where are you going?” This question runs like a refrain throughout the book and emphasizes the main thing: the country must live in constant movement towards the best, advanced, progressive. Only on this path “do other peoples and states give her the way.” We wrote a separate essay about Russia’s path: ?

Why did Gogol burn the second volume of Dead Souls?

At some point, the thought of the messiah begins to dominate in the writer’s mind, allowing him to “foresee” the revival of Chichikov and even Plyushkin. Gogol hopes to reverse the progressive “transformation” of a person into a “dead man”. But, faced with reality, the author experiences deep disappointment: the heroes and their destinies emerge from the pen as far-fetched and lifeless. Did not work out. The impending crisis in worldview was the reason for the destruction of the second book.

In the surviving excerpts from the second volume, it is clearly visible that the writer portrays Chichikov not in the process of repentance, but in flight towards the abyss. He still succeeds in adventures, dresses in a devilish red tailcoat and breaks the law. His revelation does not bode well, because in his reaction the reader will not see a sudden insight or a hint of shame. He doesn’t even believe in the possibility of such fragments ever existing. Gogol did not want to sacrifice artistic truth even for the sake of realizing his own plan.

Issues

1. Thorns on the path of development of the Motherland are the main problem in the poem “Dead Souls” that the author was worried about. These include bribery and embezzlement of officials, infantilism and inactivity of the nobility, ignorance and poverty of the peasants. The writer sought to make his contribution to the prosperity of Russia, condemning and ridiculing vices, educating new generations of people. For example, Gogol despised doxology as a cover for the emptiness and idleness of existence. The life of a citizen should be useful to society, but most of the characters in the poem are downright harmful.
2. Moral problems. He views the lack of moral standards among representatives of the ruling class as the result of their ugly passion for hoarding. The landowners are ready to shake the soul out of the peasant for the sake of profit. Also, the problem of selfishness comes to the fore: the nobles, like officials, think only about their own interests, the homeland for them is an empty weightless word. High society doesn't care common people, simply uses it for his own purposes.
3. The crisis of humanism. People are sold like animals, lost at cards like things, pawned like jewelry. Slavery is legal and is not considered immoral or unnatural. Gogol illuminated the problem of serfdom in Russia globally, showing both sides of the coin: the slave mentality inherent in the serf, and the tyranny of the owner, confident in his superiority. All these are the consequences of tyranny that permeates relationships in all levels of society. It corrupts people and ruins the country.
4. The author’s humanism is manifested in his attention to the “little man”, critical exposure of vices government system. Gogol did not even try to avoid political problems. He described a bureaucracy that functioned only on the basis of bribery, nepotism, embezzlement and hypocrisy.
5. Gogol's characters are characterized by the problem of ignorance and moral blindness. Because of it, they do not see their moral squalor and are not able to independently get out of the quagmire of vulgarity that drags them down.

What is unique about the work?

Adventurism, realistic reality, a sense of the presence of the irrational, philosophical reasoning about earthly good - all this is closely intertwined, creating an “encyclopedic” picture of the first half of the 19th century centuries.

Gogol achieves this by using various techniques of satire, humor, visual means, numerous details, a wealth of vocabulary, and compositional features.

• Symbolism plays an important role. Falling into the mud “predicts” the future exposure of the main character. The spider weaves its webs to capture its next victim. Like an “unpleasant” insect, Chichikov skillfully runs his “business,” “entwining” landowners and officials with noble lies. “sounds” like the pathos of Rus'’s forward movement and affirms human self-improvement.
• We observe the heroes through the prism of “comic” situations, apt author’s expressions and characteristics given by other characters, sometimes built on the antithesis: “he was a prominent man” - but only “at first glance”.
• The vices of the heroes of Dead Souls become a continuation of the positive character traits. For example, Plyushkin’s monstrous stinginess is a distortion of his former thrift and thriftiness.
• In small lyrical “inserts” there are the writer’s thoughts, difficult thoughts, and an anxious “I.” In them we feel the highest creative message: to help humanity change for the better.
• The fate of people who create works for the people or not to please “those in power” does not leave Gogol indifferent, because in literature he saw a force capable of “re-educating” society and promoting its civilized development. Social strata of society, their position in relation to everything national: culture, language, traditions - occupy a serious place in the author’s digressions. When it comes to Rus' and its future, through the centuries we hear the confident voice of the “prophet”, predicting the difficult, but aimed at a bright dream, future of the Fatherland.
• Philosophical reflections on the frailty of existence, lost youth and impending old age evoke sadness. Therefore, it is so natural for a tender “fatherly” appeal to youth, on whose energy, hard work and education depends on which “path” the development of Russia will take.
• The language is truly folk. The forms of colloquial, literary and written business speech are harmoniously woven into the fabric of the poem. Rhetorical questions and exclamations, the rhythmic construction of individual phrases, the use of Slavicisms, archaisms, sonorous epithets create a certain structure of speech that sounds solemn, excited and sincere, without a shadow of irony. When describing landowners' estates and their owners, vocabulary characteristic of everyday speech is used. The image of the bureaucratic world is saturated with the vocabulary of the depicted environment.
• we described in the essay of the same name.

The solemnity of comparisons, high style, combined with original speech, create a sublimely ironic manner of narration, serving to debunk the base, vulgar world of the owners.

... Without delving too far into the past of our literature, without mentioning the many predictions of “direct criticism” made long ago and now come true, let’s just say that of the existing journals, only Otechestvennye Zapiski has played the role of “direct” criticism... How long have many couldn’t forgive us for seeing the great poet in Lermontov? How long ago did they write about us that we praise him biasedly as a regular contributor to our magazine? And what! Not only that, this participation and the eyes of the whole society, full of amazement and expectation, fixed on the poet during his lifetime, and then the general grief of the educated and uneducated part of the reading public, at the news of his untimely death, fully justified our direct and harsh verdicts about his talent Moreover, Lermontov was forced to praise even those people whom not only the critic, but even his existence, he did not suspect and who could much better and more decently honor his talent with their enmity than with their affection... But these attacks on our magazine are for Marlinsky and Lermontov nothing compared to the attacks on Gogol... Of the now existing magazines, Otechestvennye zapiski were the first to say and constantly, from the day of their appearance to this minute, they say what Gogol is in Russian literature... Like the greatest absurdity on the part of our magazine, how the darkest and most shameful spot on him, various critics, writers and literary critics pointed out our opinion about Gogol... If we had the misfortune of seeing a genius and a great writer in some mediocre scribbler, an object of general ridicule and a model of mediocrity, then we would We didn’t find this as funny, ridiculous, offensive as the idea that Gogol was a great talent, a brilliant poet and the first writer of modern Russia... For comparing him with Pushkin, we were attacked by people who tried with all their might to throw mud at their literary views into the suffering shadow the first great poet of Rus'... They pretended that they were offended by the mere thought of seeing the name of Gogol next to the name of Pushkin; they pretended to be deaf when they were told that Pushkin himself was the first to understand and appreciate Gogol’s talent and that both poets had a relationship reminiscent of the relationship between Goethe and Schiller... Gogol was the first to look boldly and directly at Russian reality and its endless irony, then it will be clear why he still cannot be understood for a long time, and that it is easier for society to love him than to understand him... However, we touched on a subject that cannot be explained in a review. Soon we will have the opportunity to talk in detail about Gogol’s entire poetic activity, as one whole, and to review all his creations in their gradual development. Now we will limit ourselves to expressing in general terms our opinion about the merits of “Dead Souls” - this great work...

Interesting? Save it on your wall! Gogol began his career under Pushkin and with his death fell silent, it seemed, forever. After The Inspector General he did not publish anything until half of this year. During this period of his silence, which so saddened the friends of Russian literature and so delighted literary writers, managed to rise and fade on the horizon of Russian poetry bright Star Lermontov's talent. After “A Hero of Our Time,” several stories, more or less remarkable, appeared only in magazines (readers know which ones) and Smirdin’s almanac, but neither in the magazines nor separately did anything major appear, nothing that constitutes the eternal acquisition of literature and how the rays of the sun are in the focus of the glass, concentrated in itself, at the same time arousing both love and hatred, and enthusiastic praise and fierce censure, complete satisfaction and complete dissatisfaction, but in any case general attention, noise, talk and controversy. A kind of apathetic despondency has taken possession of literature; the triumph of mediocrity was complete, seeing that no one was stopping her, she mastered the novel, the story, and the theater; she released a long phalanx of freaks and scoundrels, now imitating Marlinsky in ghosts, now charlatanizing French history and Lithuanian legends, stretching them out into long Volumes of boring tales; then, interrupting with old rags, passing off to us the dirt of the common people as nationality, lard and dumplings as patriotism, and caricatures of never-before-experienced idiots as humor and wit, who, by the will of the author, are either stupid, then smart, then stupid again; sometimes parodying Shakespeare and adapting his dramas to Russian customs; then translating into the Russian language and the Russian stage the rubbish and rubble from the backyard of German dramatic literature. And suddenly, amid this triumph of pettiness, mediocrity, insignificance, mediocrity, childish ideas of children's thoughts, false feelings, pharisaical patriotism, cloying nationality - suddenly, like a refreshing flash of lightning in the midst of the languid and pernicious stuffiness and drought, a purely Russian, national creation appears, snatched from hiding place folk life, so much patriotic, mercilessly pulling back the veil from reality and breathing passionate, nervous, bloody love for the fertile grain of Russian life; a creation immensely artistic in concept and execution, in the characters of the characters in Russian life, and at the same time deep in thought, social, social and historical... In “Dead Souls” the author took such a great step that everything he had written so far seems weak and pale in comparison with them... We consider the greatest success and step forward on the author’s part to be the fact that in “Dead Souls” his subjectivity is felt everywhere and, so to speak, tangibly. Here we do not mean that subjectivity, which, due to its limitations or one-sidedness, distorts the objective reality of the objects depicted by the poet, but that deep, comprehensive and humane subjectivity, which in the artist reveals a person with a warm heart, a sympathetic soul and a spiritual-personal self, that subjectivity , which does not allow him, with apathetic indifference, to be alien to the world he depicts, but forces him to conduct through his living soul the phenomena of the external world, and through that, to breathe the living soul into them... This predominance of subjectivity, penetrating and animating the entire poem of Gogol, reaches to high lyrical pathos and refreshing waves covers the reader’s soul even in digressions, as, for example, where he talks about the enviable lot of the writer, “who from the great pool of daily rotating images chose only a few exceptions; who never changed the sublime structure of his lyre , did not descend from his peak to his poor, insignificant brothers and, without touching the ground, completely plunged into his own images, far removed from it and exalted"; or where he talks about sad fate“a writer who dared to bring to light everything that is before our eyes every minute and that indifferent eyes do not see, all the terrible, stunning mud of little things that entangle our lives, all the depth of the cold, fragmented, everyday characters with which our earthly, sometimes bitter and boring road teems, and with the strong strength of the inexorable chisel, who dared to expose them convexly and brightly to the eyes of the people"; or where he, on the occasion of Chichikov’s meeting with the blonde who captivated him, says that “everywhere in life, whether among the callous, rough-and-poor, unkempt, moldy, base ranks of it or among the monotonously cold and boring, neat upper classes - everywhere, at least once, a person will encounter a phenomenon on his way that is unlike everything he has seen before, which will at least once awaken in him a feeling that is not similar to those that he is destined to feel all his life; everywhere, across whatever sorrows from which our life is weaved, shining joy will rush merrily, just as sometimes a brilliant carriage with golden harness, picturesque horses and the sparkling shine of glass will suddenly suddenly rush past some stalled poor village that has seen nothing, except for the rural cart - and the men stood for a long time, yawning with open mouths, without putting on their hats, even though the marvelous carriage had long since rushed off and disappeared from sight."... There are many such places in the poem - it’s impossible to list them all. But this pathos of the poet’s subjectivity is manifested not only in such highly lyrical digressions; it manifests itself incessantly, even in the midst of the story about the most prosaic subjects, such as, for example, about the well-known path trodden by the forgotten Russian people... His music is felt by the attentive ear of the reader in exclamations like the following: “Eh, Russian people! He doesn’t like to die his own death!

We see an equally important step forward on the part of Gogol’s talent in the fact that in “Dead Souls” he completely abandoned the Little Russian element and became a Russian national poet in the entire space of this word. With every word of his poem the reader can say:

There is a Russian spirit here, it smells like Russia!

This Russian spirit is felt in humor, and in irony, and in the expression of the author, and in the sweeping power of feelings, and in the lyricism of digressions, and in the pathos of the entire poem, and in the characters of the characters, from Chichikov to Selifan and the “dappled scoundrel” inclusive , - in Petrushka, who carried with him his special air, and in the watchman, who, in the lantern light, while asleep, executed an animal on his fingernail and fell asleep again. We know that the prim feeling of many readers will be offended in print by what is so subjectively characteristic of them in life, and will call pranks like an animal executed on a fingernail greasy; but this means not understanding a poem based on the pathos of reality as it is... “Dead Souls” does not correspond to the crowd’s concept of a novel as a fairy tale, where characters fell in love, separated, and then got married and became rich and happy. Gogol's poem can be fully enjoyed only by those who have access to the thought and artistic execution of the creation, to whom the content is important, and not the “plot”; only places and particulars remain for the admiration of all others. Moreover, like any deep work, “Dead Souls” is not fully revealed from the first reading, even for thinking people: reading it for the second time, it’s as if you are reading a new, never-before-seen work. "Dead Souls" requires study. Moreover, it must be repeated that humor is accessible only to a deep and highly developed spirit. The crowd does not understand and does not like him. Every scribbler here gawks at drawing wild passions and strong characters, copying them, of course, from himself and his friends. He considers it a humiliation for himself to stoop to the comic and hates it out of instinct, like a mouse hates a cat. Most of us understand “comic” and “humour” as buffoonery, as a caricature, and we are sure that many, not jokingly, with a sly and satisfied smile from their insight, will say and write that Gogol jokingly called his novel a poem... Namely So! After all, Gogol is a great wit and joker, and what a cheerful man, My God! He laughs incessantly and makes others laugh!.. That’s right, you guessed it, smart people...

As for us, not considering ourselves the right to speak in print about the personal character of a living writer, we will only say that Gogol did not jokingly call his novel a “poem” and that he does not mean a comic poem by it. It was not the author who told us this, but his book. We do not see anything humorous or funny in it; In not a single word of the author did we notice an intention to make the reader laugh: everything is serious, calm, true and deep... Do not forget that this book is only an exposition, an introduction to the poem, that the author promises two more of the same big books, in which we will meet Chichikov again and see new faces in which Rus' will express itself from its other side... It is impossible to look at “Dead Souls” more erroneously and understand them more crudely, as seeing satire in them. But we will talk about this and much more in its own place, in more detail; now let him say something himself

<…>

It’s sad to think that this high lyrical pathos, these thundering, singing praises of the blissful in himself national identity, worthy of the great Russian poet, will not be accessible to everyone, that good-natured ignorance will laugh heartily at something that will make the hair on another’s head stand up in sacred awe... And yet this is so, and it cannot be otherwise. A lofty, inspired poem will be considered by most to be a “humorous joke.” There will also be patriots, about whom Gogol speaks on page 468 of his poem and who, with their characteristic insight, will see in “Dead Souls” an evil satire, a consequence of coldness and lack of love for one’s native, for what is native - they, for whom it is so warm in the houses of well-intentioned and diligent service they have slowly acquired... Perhaps they will also shout about personalities... However, this is good on the one hand: this will be the best critical assessment of the poem... As for us, we, on the contrary, would rather reproach the author for an excess of feelings unsubdued to calmly rational contemplation, in places too youthfully carried away, rather than a lack of love and ardor for the native and domestic... We are talking about some - fortunately, a few, although, unfortunately, harsh - places where the author is too easy judges the nationality of alien tribes and not too modestly indulges in dreams of superiority Slavic tribe above them. We think that it is better to leave everyone to their own and, conscious of their own dignity, be able to respect the dignity of others... Much can be said about this, as well as about many other things, which we will do soon in our own time and place.

A.I. Herzen

... "Dead souls" shocked all of Russia. It was necessary to bring such an accusation against modern Russia. This is a medical history written by a master. Gogol's poetry is a cry of horror and shame that is uttered by a man who has fallen under the influence of vulgar life, when he suddenly sees his bruised face in the mirror. But in order for such a cry to escape from the chest, it is necessary that something healthy remains in it, so that the great power of revival lives in it.

The great indictment drawn up by Russian literature against Russian life, this complete and ardent renunciation of our mistakes, this confession full of horror before our past, this bitter irony that makes us blush for the present, is our hope, our salvation, the progressive element of Russian nature .

"Dead Souls" by Gogol is an amazing book, a bitter reproach to modern Rus', but not hopeless. Where the gaze can penetrate the fog of unclean, manure fumes, there it sees a daring, full of strength nationality. His portraits are amazingly good, his life is preserved in its entirety; not abstract types, but kind people whom each of us has seen a hundred times. It’s sad in Chichikov’s world, just as we really are sad, and here and there there is only one consolation in faith and hope for the future; but this faith cannot be denied, and it is not just a romantic hope ins Blaue, but has a realistic basis, the blood somehow circulates well in the Russian’s chest.

Gogol's poetry, his mournful laughter is not only an indictment against such an absurd existence, but also the painful cry of a man trying to save himself before he is buried alive in this world of madmen. In order for such a cry to escape from the chest, it is necessary that something healthy remains in it, so that the great power of revival lives in it. Gogol felt, and many others felt with him, that behind the dead souls there are living souls.

D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky

Let us note that Herzen saw in the poem a “bitter reproach” of his contemporary, that is, pre-reform, Rus'. Here comes the idea that over time, when the order of things changes, when Russia is renewed with reforms, when enlightenment spreads, then all these ugly types will disappear - the Chichikovs, Manilovs, Sobakeviches, etc., and the concepts and morals that correspond to them will disappear . Alas! it was an illusion. In turn, Russia renewed itself as best it could, but Gogol’s types did not disappear. They were also “renewed” and appeared in a new guise, but with the same emptiness in their souls, with the same hopeless darkness and vulgarity. Saltykova’s satire repeatedly used ready-made Gogol types, and in particular pointed to the post-reform Nozdrevs. This guy, very Russian, is surprisingly tenacious and still makes scandals and hooligans. Chichikov is also alive. Neither the Sobakevichs nor the Manilovs have disappeared... The stamina, constancy, vitality of these types obviously depends on the fact that they capture not temporary or accidental features, but the fundamental, deep-lying “properties of the Russian person,” which can change or completely disappear only after a long time historical process improvement of Russian national psychology.

(

15. “Dead Souls” by Gogol: poetics; controversy in literary criticism.

“Dead Souls” is a work in which, according to Belinsky, all of Rus' appeared.

The plot and composition of "Dead Souls" are determined by the subject of the image - Gogol's desire to comprehend Russian life, the character of Russian people, the fate of Russia. It's about about a fundamental change in the subject of the image compared to the literature of the 20-30s: the artist’s attention is transferred from the image of an individual to a portrait of society. In other words, the novelistic aspect of the genre content (depiction of the private life of an individual) is replaced by a moral descriptive one (portrait of society at the non-heroic moment of its development). Therefore, Gogol is looking for a plot that would provide the widest possible coverage of reality. The plot of the trip opened up such an opportunity: “Pushkin found that the plot of Dead Souls was good for me because,” Gogol said, “it gives complete freedom to travel all over Russia with the hero and bring out many different characters.” Therefore, the motive of movement, road, path turns out to be the leitmotif of the poem. This motif receives a completely different meaning in the famous lyrical digression of the eleventh chapter: the road with a rushing chaise turns into the path along which Rus' flies, “and, looking askance, other peoples and states step aside and give way to it.” This leitmotif also contains the unknown paths of Russian national development:

“Rus', where are you rushing, give me an answer? It doesn’t give an answer,” offering an antithesis to the paths of other peoples: “What crooked, deaf, narrow, impassable roads, leading far to the side, humanity has chosen...” The image of the road also embodies the path of life the hero (“but for all that his road was difficult...”), and the author’s creative path: “And for a long time it was determined for me by the wonderful power to go hand in hand with my strange heroes...”.

The plot of the journey gives Gogol the opportunity to create a gallery of images of landowners. At the same time, the composition looks very rational: the exposition of the plot of the journey is given in the first chapter (Chichikova meets officials and some landowners, receives invitations from them), followed by five chapters in which the landowners “sit”, and Chichikov travels from chapter to chapter, buying up dead souls. Gogol in “Dead Souls,” as in “The Inspector General,” creates an absurd artistic world in which people lose their human essence and turn into a parody of the possibilities inherent in them by nature. In an effort to detect signs of death and loss of spirituality (soul) in the characters, Gogol resorts to the use of everyday detail. Each landowner is surrounded by many objects that can characterize him. Details associated with certain characters not only live autonomously, but also “add up” into a kind of motive. The images of the landowners whom Chichikov visits are presented in contrast in the poem, since they carry various vices. One after another, each spiritually more insignificant than the previous one, the owners of the estates follow in the work: Manilov, Korobochka, Nozdrev, Sobakevich, Plyushkin. If Manilov is sentimental and sweet to the point of cloying, then Sobakevich is straightforward and rude. Their views on life are polar: for Manilov, everyone around them is beautiful, for Sobakevich they are robbers and swindlers. Manilov does not show real concern for the well-being of the peasants, for the well-being of the family; he entrusted all management to a rogue clerk, who ruins both the peasants and the landowner. But Sobakevich is a strong owner, ready to commit any scam for the sake of profit.

Korobochka's callousness is manifested in petty hoarding; the only thing she cares about is the price of hemp and honey; “I wouldn’t go cheap” even when selling dead souls. Korobochka resembles Sobakevich in his stinginess and passion for profit, although the stupidity of the “clubhead” takes these qualities to a comical limit. The “accumulators”, Sobakevich and Korobochka, are opposed by the “spendthrifts” - Nozdryov and Plyushkin. Nozdryov is a desperate spendthrift and debauchee, a devastator and ruiner of the economy. His energy turned into a scandalous bustle, aimless and destructive.

If Nozdryov threw away his entire fortune, then Plyushkin turned his into mere appearance. That the last line Gogol shows, to which the death of the soul can lead a person, using the example of Plyushkin, whose image completes the gallery of landowners. This hero is no longer so much funny as scary and pitiful, since, unlike previous characters, he loses not only his spirituality, but also his human appearance. Chichikov, seeing him, wonders for a long time whether it is a man or a woman, and finally decides that the housekeeper is in front of him. And yet he is a landowner, the owner of more than a thousand souls and huge storerooms.

True, in these storerooms bread rots, flour turns into stone, cloth and linens turn into dust. A no less eerie picture appears in the manor’s house, where everything is covered with dust and cobwebs, and in the corner of the room “heaps of things that are rougher and that are unworthy to lie on the tables are piled up. What exactly was in this

heap, it was difficult to decide,” just as it was difficult to “get to the bottom of what... the robe” of the owner was made from. How did it happen that a rich, educated man, a nobleman, turned into “a blight on humanity”? To answer this question. Gogol turns to the hero's past. (He writes about the rest of the landowners as already formed types.) The writer very accurately traces the degradation of man, and the reader understands that man is not born a monster, but becomes one. This means that this soul could live! But Gogol notes that over time, a person submits himself to the prevailing laws in society and betrays the ideals of his youth.

All Gogol's landowners are bright, individual, and memorable characters. But with all their external diversity, the essence remains unchanged: while possessing living souls, they themselves have long ago turned into dead souls. We do not see the true movements of a living soul either in the empty dreamer, or in the strong-minded housewife, or in the “cheerful boor,” or in the bear-like landowner-fist. All this is just an appearance with a complete lack of spiritual content, which is why these heroes are funny.

Gogol shows the reason for the death of a person’s soul using the example of the formation of the character of the main character, Chichikov. A joyless childhood, deprived of parental love and affection, service and the example of bribe-taking officials - these factors formed a scoundrel who is like everyone around him.

But he turned out to be more greedy in his pursuit of acquisitions than Korobochka, more callous than Sobakevich and more impudent than Nozdryov in the means of enrichment. In the final chapter, which completes the biography of Chichikov, he is finally exposed as a clever predator, acquirer and entrepreneur of the bourgeois type, a civilized scoundrel, the master of life. But Chichikov, differing from the landowners in his entrepreneurial spirit, is also a “dead” soul. The “brilliant joy” of life is inaccessible to him. The happiness of the “decent man” Chichikov is based on money. Calculation crowded out all human feelings from him and made him a “dead” soul.

Gogol shows the emergence of a new man in Russian life, who has neither a noble family, nor title, nor estate, but who, at the cost of his own efforts, thanks to his intelligence and resourcefulness, is trying to make a fortune for himself. His ideal is a penny; They see marriage as a profitable deal. His preferences and tastes are purely material. Having quickly figured out a person, he knows how to approach everyone in a special way, subtly calculating his moves. His inner diversity and elusiveness are also emphasized by his appearance, described by Gogol in vague terms: “There was a gentleman sitting in the chaise, neither too fat nor too thin, one cannot say that he was old, but not that he was too young.” Gogol was able to discern individual features of the emerging type in his contemporary society and brought them together in the image of Chichikov. NN city officials are even more impersonal than the landowners. Their deadness is shown in the ball scene: no people are visible, muslins, satins, muslins, hats, tailcoats, uniforms, shoulders, necks, ribbons are everywhere. The whole interest of life is concentrated on gossip, gossip, petty vanity, envy. They differ from each other only in the size of the bribe; all are slackers, they have no interests, these are also “dead” souls.

But behind the “dead” souls of Chichikov, officials and landowners, Gogol saw the living souls of the peasants, the strength national character. According to A.I. Herzen, in Gogol’s poem “behind the dead souls - living souls” appear. The talent of the people is revealed in the dexterity of the coachman Mikheev, the shoemaker Telyatnikov, the brickmaker Milushkin, the carpenter Stepan Probka. The strength and acuity of the people's mind was reflected in the glibness and accuracy of the Russian word, the depth and integrity of Russian feeling - in the sincerity of the Russian song, the breadth and generosity of the soul - in the brightness and unbridled joy of folk holidays. Unlimited dependence on the usurper power of the landowners, who condemn the peasants to forced, exhausting labor, to hopeless ignorance, gives rise to stupid Mityaev and Minyaev, downtrodden Proshek and Pelageya, who do not know “where is right and where is left. Gogol sees how high and good qualities are distorted in the kingdom of “dead” souls, how peasants die, driven to despair, rushing into any risky business, just to get out of serfdom.

Not finding the truth from the supreme authorities, Captain Kopeikin, helping himself, becomes the chieftain of the robbers. “The Tale of Captain Kopeikin” reminds the authorities of the threat of revolutionary rebellion in Russia.

Feudal deadness destroys the good inclinations in a person and destroys the people. Against the backdrop of the majestic, endless expanses of Rus' real pictures Russian life seems especially bitter. Having depicted Russia “from one side” in its negative essence in the poem, in “stunning pictures

triumphant evil and suffering hatred,” Gogol once again convinces that in his time “it is impossible to direct society or even an entire generation towards the beautiful until you show the full depth of its real abomination.”

Controversy in Russian criticism around Gogol's Dead Souls.

Konstantin Aksakov was rightly considered “the foremost fighter of Slavophilism” (S.A. Vengerov). Contemporaries remembered his youthful friendship with Belinsky in Stankevich’s circle and then his sharp break with him. A particularly violent clash between them occurred in 1842 over “Dead Souls.”

K. Aksakov wrote a brochure “Nothow many words about Gogol’s poem “The Adventures of Chichikov, or Merthigh souls" (1842). Belinsky, who also responded (in Otechestvennye zapiski) to Gogol’s work, then wrote a review of Aksakov’s pamphlet full of bewilderment. Aksakov responded to Belinsky in the article “Explanation about Gogol’s poem “The Adventures of Chichikov, or Dead Souls” (“Moskvityanin”). Belinsky, in turn, wrote a merciless analysis of Aksakov’s answer in an article entitled “An explanation for an explanation regarding Gogol’s poem “The Adventures of Chichikov, or Dead Souls.”

Obfuscating the significance of realism and satire in Gogol’s work, Aksakov focused on the subtext of the work, its genre designation as a “poem,” and the prophetic statements of the writer. Aksakov built an entire concept in which, in essence, Gogol was declared the Homer of Russian society, and the pathos of his work was seen not in the denial of existing reality, but in its affirmation.

In the subsequent history of European literature, Homer’s epic lost its important features and became smaller, “descending to novels and, finally, to the extreme degree of its humiliation, to the French story.” And suddenly, Aksakov continues, an epic appears with all the depth and simple grandeur, like the “poem” of Gogol among the ancients. The same deeply penetrating and all-seeing epic gaze, the same all-encompassing epic contemplation. In vain then, in polemics, Aksakov argued that he had no direct comparison between Gogol and Homer, Kuleshov believes.

Aksakov pointed to the internal quality of Gogol’s own talent, which strives to connect all the impressions of Russian life into harmonious, harmonious pictures. We know that Gogol had such a subjective desire and, abstractly speaking, Slavophil criticism correctly pointed to it. But this observation was immediately devalued by them completely, since such “unity” or such “epic harmony” of Gogol’s talent was intended in their eyes to destroy Gogol the realist. Epicness killed the satirist in Gogol - the exposer of life. Aksakov is ready to look for “human movements” in Korobochka, Manilov, Sobakevich and thereby ennoble them as temporarily lost people. The carriers of the Russian substance turned out to be primitive serfs, Selifan and Petrushka. Belinsky ridiculed all these stretches and desires to liken the heroes of “Dead Souls” to the heroes of Homer. According to the logic set by Aksakov himself, Belinsky sarcastically drew obvious parallels between the characters: “If so, then, of course, why shouldn’t Chichikov be the Achilles of the Russian Iliad, Sobakevich - the frantic Ajax (especially during dinner), Manilov - Alexander Paris, To Plyushkin - Nestor, to Selifan - Automedon, to the police chief, father and benefactor of the city - Agamemnon, and to the policeman with a pleasant blush and in patent leather boots - Hermes?..”

Belinsky, who saw the main thing in Gogol, i.e., a realist, indeed, before the release of “Dead Souls” and even, more precisely, before the controversy with K. Aksakov, did not ask the question of Gogol’s “duality” and left the preaching “manners” of the writer in the shadows

To make the comparison between Gogol and Homer not look too odious, Aksakov invented similarities between them “by the act of creation.” At the same time, he put Shakespeare on an equal footing with them. But what is the “act of creation”, “the act of creativity”? This is a far-fetched, purely a priori category, the purpose of which is to confuse the issue. Who will measure this act and how? Belinsky proposed returning to the category of content: it is this, content, that should be the source material when comparing one poet with another. But it has already been proven that Gogol has nothing in common with Homer in the area of ​​content.

Belinsky insisted that what we have before us is not the apotheosis of Russian life, but its revelation, before us modern novel, not an epic... Aksakov tried to deprive Gogol’s work of social and satirical meaning. Belinsky caught this well and decisively disputed it. Belinsky was alerted by the lyrical passages in “Dead Souls”

It seems that already in the polemic about “Dead Souls” (1842), which ridiculed the “minority”, the privileged elite, Belinsky tried to grasp popular point the point of view from which Gogol carried out his trial.

Belinsky highly appreciated Gogol’s work for the fact that it was “snatched from the hiding place of people’s life” and imbued with “nervous, bloody love for the fertile grain of Russian life” (“The Adventures of Chichikov, or Dead Souls”). This fertile seed was, of course, the people, Gogol had a love for them, and in the struggle for their interests he painted disgusting types of landowners and officials. Gogol understood the task of his “poem” as national, contrary to his realistic method, his satire. He believed that he was painting Russian people in general and, following the negative images of landowners, he would paint positive ones. It was on this line that the divergence between Belinsky and Gogol occurred. Even after initially praising the lyrical pathos in “Dead Souls” as an expression of “blissful national self-awareness,” Belinsky, during the polemics, then withdrew his praise, seeing in this lyricism something completely different: Gogol’s promises in the following parts of “Dead Souls” to idealize Rus', i.e. e. refusal to judge social evil. This meant a complete distortion of the very idea of ​​nationality

Gogol’s mistake, according to Belinsky, was not that he had a desire to positively portray the Russian people, but that he was looking for him in the wrong place, among the propertied classes. The critic seemed to be saying to the writers: manage to be popular, and you will be national.

Criticism of N. V. Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls”
V. G. Belinsky
...Dead Souls will be read by everyone, but, of course, not everyone will like it. Among the many reasons is that “Dead Souls” does not correspond to the crowd’s concept of a novel as a fairy tale, where the characters fell in love, separated, and then got married and became rich and happy. Gogol’s poem can be fully enjoyed only by those who have access to the thought and artistic execution of the creation, to whom the content is important, and not the “plot”; only places and particulars remain for the admiration of all others. Moreover, like any deep work, “Dead Souls” is not fully revealed from the first reading, even for thinking people: reading it for the second time, it’s as if you are reading a new, never seen work. "Dead Souls" requires study.<...>
... “Dead Souls” stand above everything that was and is in Russian literature, for they have a living depth social idea was inextricably combined with the endless artistry of the images, and this novel, for some reason called by the author a poem, is as much a national work as it is a highly artistic one. It has its shortcomings, important and unimportant. To the latter we include irregularities in language, which in general constitutes as much a weak side of Gogol’s talent as his syllable (style) constitutes strong point his talent. We find important shortcomings of the novel “Dead Souls” almost everywhere where, from a poet, from an artist, the author tries to become some kind of prophet and falls into a somewhat inflated and pompous lyricism... Fortunately, the number of such lyrical passages is insignificant in relation to the volume of the whole of the novel, and they can be skipped while reading, losing nothing from the pleasure delivered by the novel itself.<...>
As for us, not considering ourselves the right to speak in print about the personal character of a living writer, we will only say that Gogol did not jokingly call his novel a “poem” and that he does not mean a comic poem by it. It was not the author who told us this, but his book. We do not see anything humorous or funny in it; In not a single word of the author did we notice an intention to make the reader laugh: everything is serious, calm, true and deep... Do not forget that this book is only an exposition, an introduction to the poem, that the author promises two more such large books in which we we will meet Chichikov again and see new faces in which Rus' will express itself from its other side... It is impossible to look at “Dead Souls” more erroneously and understand them more crudely, as seeing satire in them...<...>
(From the article “The Adventures of Chichikov, or Dead Souls”) A. I. Herzen
... “Dead Souls” shocked all of Russia.
It was necessary to bring such an accusation against modern Russia. This is a medical history written by a master. Gogol's poetry is a cry of horror and shame that is uttered by a man who has fallen under the influence of vulgar life, when he suddenly sees his bruised face in the mirror. But in order for such a cry to escape from the chest, it is necessary that something healthy remains in it, so that the great power of revival lives in it.. (From the article “On the development of revolutionary ideas in Russia”)... “Dead Souls” by Gogol - an amazing book, a bitter reproach to modern Rus', but not hopeless. Where the gaze can penetrate the fog of unclean, manure fumes, there it sees a daring, full of strength nationality. His portraits are amazingly good, his life is preserved in its entirety; not abstract types, but kind people whom each of us has seen a hundred times. It’s sad in Chichikov’s world, just as we really are sad, and here and there there is only one consolation in faith and hope for the future; but this faith cannot be denied, and it is not just a romantic hope ins Blaue, but has a realistic basis, the blood somehow circulates well in the Russian’s chest.
(From a diary of 1842)
...Gogol's poetry, his mournful laughter is not only an indictment against such an absurd existence, but also the painful cry of a man trying to save himself before he is buried alive in this world of madmen. In order for such a cry to escape from the chest, it is necessary that something healthy remains in it, so that the great power of rebirth lives in it. Gogol felt - and many others felt with him - that behind the dead souls there are living souls. (From the article “New Phase in Russian Literature”)
D. I. Pisarev
The name of Gogol is dear to the Russian heart; Gogol was our first folk, exclusively Russian poet; no one understood better than he all the shades of Russian life and Russian character, no one portrayed Russian society so amazingly correctly; the best modern figures of our literature can be called followers of Gogol; all their works bear the stamp of his influence, traces of which will probably remain on Russian literature for a long time.
(From the article “Nikolai Yakovlevich Prokopovich and his relationship to Gogol. P.V. Gerbel”, 1858)N. A. Dobrolyubov
...The further, the more strongly Gogol expressed the humane side of his talent, and even against his will, in anticipation of bright and pure ideals, he depicted everything with his powerful words “poverty, and poverty, and the imperfection of our life.” Mr. Dostoevsky also headed down this path.
(From the article “Downtrodden People”) Yu. N. Tynyanov
<...>Gogol saw things unusually: there are many individual examples: a description of Mirgorod, Rome, Plyushkin’s housing with the famous pile, the singing doors of “Old World Landowners,” Nozdrev’s barrel organ. The last example also points to another feature in the depiction of things: Gogol captures the comedy of things.<...>
<... >Therefore, Gogol elevates dead nature into a kind of principle of literary theory: “He said that for the success of a story and a story in general, it is enough if the author describes a room and a familiar street to him. “Whoever has the ability to convey his apartment picturesquely can be a very remarkable author later,” he said.”
... “Characters”, “types” of Gogol are the essence of masks, sharply defined, not experiencing any “turns” or “development”. The same motive runs through all the movements and actions of the hero - Gogol’s work is the leitmotif. Masks can also be motionless, “floating” - Plyushkin, Manilov, Sobakevich; can also be found in gestures - Chichikov.
Masks can be either comic or tragic - Gogol has two plans: high, tragic, and low, comic. They usually walk side by side, successively replacing each other.<...>
(From the book “Poetics. History of Literature. Cinema”) G. A. Zhukovsky
...If you see in the ideological composition of “Dead Souls” only the objects of the image, only a series of negative characters and paintings, it seems like a problem: a large volume of several hundred pages is almost entirely occupied with the depiction of all sorts of filth, and suddenly - as a conclusion from this sea of ​​filth : “Aren’t you, Rus', like a brisk, unstoppable troika, rushing along?” - and a bright image, an image that carries firm confidence in the great destiny of Rus', and not only in its great future, but even in its present - in the greatness of the meaning that it has historical movement forward.
...In this struggle between evil and good, according to Gogol, good certainly wins, already because good, for Gogol, is the essence of the character and existence of the people, and evil is a distortion, class and estate, lordly and violent artificial layering on the positive basis. The victory of good at the end of the conflict that forms the plot of the poem is expressed in the author’s monologue about the troika, where the Gogolian principle of a united and integral image, covering a huge collective, and ultimately the entire country, triumphs. In this image both the lyrical beginning of the author and the essence of all Rus' merged.
(From the book “Gogol’s Realism”) D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky Let us note that Herzen saw in the poem a “bitter reproach” of his contemporary, that is, pre-reform, Rus'. Here comes the idea that over time, when the order of things changes, when Russia is renewed with reforms, when enlightenment spreads, then all these ugly types will disappear - the Chichikovs, Manilovs, Sobakeviches, etc., and the concepts and morals that correspond to them will disappear . Alas! it was an illusion. In turn, Russia renewed itself as best it could, but Gogol’s types did not disappear. They also “renewed” and appeared in a new guise, but with the same emptiness in their souls, with the same hopeless darkness and vulgarity. Saltykova’s satire repeatedly used ready-made Gogol types, and in particular pointed to the post-reform Nozdrevs. This guy, very Russian, is surprisingly tenacious and still makes scandals and hooligans. Chichikov is also alive. Neither the Sobakevichs nor the Manilovs have disappeared... The durability, constancy, vitality of these types obviously depends on the fact that they capture not temporary or random features, but the fundamental, deep-lying “properties of the Russian person” that can change or completely disappear only after a long historical process of improvement of Russian national psychology.
(From the article “Gogol in his works”)
V. F. Pereverzev...The most complex character in Gogol's work is Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov. This image remained unfinished, but even in its unfinished form it gives the impression of the best of all images of a complex nature. Here Gogol is again completely in his element, in a small-scale and bureaucratic environment. Gogol knows the soul of Chichikov, this small landowner, thrown into the bureaucratic world and stubbornly making his way back to the estate, like the back of his hand. True, this character is more complex than all that Gogol had to deal with before; but there are no new psychological elements in him, he only combines in his personality all the traits scattered in simpler characters.<...>
...He undoubtedly belongs to the family of sky-smokers, because there is absolutely no creative meaning in his existence either. He is just as ridiculous as all Gogol's types, because with his spiritual underdevelopment, he does not even suspect his insignificance and is too pleased with his specialness. However, when you try to identify what type of sky smoker it is, you get confused. There is not a single sharply prominent feature in his nature that could be used as the basis for a definition that would color his sky-smoking behavior in a certain, stable tone. Now he will give the impression of a sensitive, delicate nature, and five minutes later he will surprise you with a rude, fist-pumping behavior; either he will directly overwhelm you with his solidity, or he will throw out the most frivolous entrechat. He is as elusive as a loach.<...>
...Among all the characters in Gogol’s creativity, Chichikov has the most versatile and rich nature. But, firstly, this nature remained undeveloped, remained in an almost primitive state, and secondly, in the conditions of soul-owning sky-smoking, Chichikov’s natural abilities were wasted on trifles and completely meaningless.
(From the book “Gogol. Dostoevsky”) I. P. Zolotussky<...>Chichikov's servants are usually not noticed in Chichikov's presence. But without them he is like without hands, just as without him they are neither men nor servants. This trinity of britzka riders are one flesh, and this is exactly how the population of the troika should be considered.
Chichikov is gallant and courteous with officials, spouting quotes and book turns; with men he is simple and ingenuous in his simplicity. Chichikov’s “ticklish” nose wrinkles from the special smell of Parsley, or, as Gogol delicately calls it, “air,” but nevertheless it is impossible to imagine Chichikov without Parsley (and without Selifan).
Selifan is not only Chichikov’s coachman, he is the leader of his chaise, its support, he is the father of his own brown, bay and forelock, with whom he talks like children. And if you just make him very angry, then blows from the reins and nicknames will rain down on the horses. He will dub Chubary (as the laziest one) “Bonaparte”, “German trouser”, and the brown one the Assessor. And all three together are “secretaries”.
This is funny, because Chichikov himself will be mistaken in the city of N for Napoleon, and Korobochka, when he starts trading “dead souls” with her, will ask Chichikov if he served as an assessor.
Chichikov's troika cannot set off on a journey without a man, cannot gallop across Rus' without the man's remarks, without his assent or disapproval. And Chichikov’s chaise, as Gogol writes, was assembled and equipped for the road by an efficient man from Yaroslavl.
The man in “Dead Souls” corrects the path of Chichikov’s chaise, shows it the direction, or even simply pulls it out of the mud. The girl Pelageya, who doesn’t know where left is and where right is, helps the trio get onto the highway.<...>
The “dead” in “Dead Souls” join the living, stand on a par with them, forming that living population of Russia, without which this poem would be underpopulated; Gogol says that Selifan and Petrushka are not even secondary or tertiary heroes, that there are more important people here, and so on. But he is disingenuous. It is these men, and with them the four hundred souls of the “dead” that Chichikov bought in the Enskaya province, who are the very first heroes who make up its living flesh.
All of Rus' fit into the small space of Dead Souls. Who's not here? It seems that Gogol touched all ranks and all classes in them, and did not bypass anyone. The nobility, the peasantry, the officers, the province, St. Petersburg, the tavern and tavern, the catacombs of offices (which Gogol compares with the circles of hell) and the vast Russian expanse. If you want to see a Russian clerk, you will see him too, a merchant - there is a merchant, a policeman - there is a policeman, ladies - there are ladies too. Couriers, onlookers, workers, sex workers, tavern owners, spendthrifts and misers, runaways and convicts, robbers and children - everything is here. There is even a prophet, because the Russian land cannot do without a prophet, although, as Gogol liked to repeat, there is no prophet in one’s own fatherland.<...>
“Dead Souls” is the central and fundamental creation of Gogol, which he approached with the experience of Russian literature acquired before him, and, emerging from which, Russian literature, having gained the power of breathing, became worldwide. And although Gogol sets himself the maximum goal in each of his works, in this strange poem, whose name “poem” has not yet been explained, he creates a Russian “negative” epic, developing along the way into an apotheosis equal in scale, maybe , the apotheosis of the ancient Greeks.
Before Gogol, there were poems that, at least in their very title, covered the subject in a large and historically resonant way: “Rossiyada” by Kheraskov, for example. There was a Pushkin novel in verse, but in prose no one - until Gogol - dared to embrace Rus' “from all sides,” making the national pan-European, and the pan-European national. (From the article “Horizon Without End”)
V. P. Astafiev
In every great literature there is a writer who makes up a separate Great Literature: Shakespeare in England, Goethe in Germany, Cervantes in Spain, Petrarch and Dante in Italy. In Russian literature there is a peak that does not overshadow anyone, but in itself represents a separate Great Literature - Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol. However, in his work there is a book of books that does not depend on anyone or anything - “Dead Souls”. This book is not just a textbook and encyclopedia of Russian national character, but a manifestation of the highest artistic achievement, with which, in my opinion, it is difficult to compare even with subsequent brilliant Russian literature.<...>
...His irony and laughter are bitter everywhere, but not arrogant. Laughing, Gogol suffers. By exposing a vice, he first of all exposes it in himself, which he admitted more than once; he suffered and cried, dreaming of getting closer to the “ideal.” And it was given to him not only to get closer to great artistic discoveries, but also to painfully comprehend the truth of existence, the greatness and depravity of human morality.
(From the article “Approaching the Truth”)
S. P. Zalygin
Perhaps no one has ever had such a keen eye as Gogol.
He sees character in such a way that it is not only character, it is also a way of existence for a certain group of people.
Existence according to Khlestakov, according to Chichikov, according to Manilov, according to Shponka.
Perhaps no scientist or writer has been able to trace this connection to the same extent, to unite character with behavior, with thought, with gesture, with a seemingly random exclamation of a person.<...>
Even Gogol’s lyrics are like this - they are always visual, always picturesque and picturesque and, oddly enough, always hyperbolic.
It is devoid of elegance, intimacy, elegance, subtle thoughtfulness - it is epic and grandiose.
It is difficult to find lyricism of the same nature in anyone else, except in Homer, and later in Byron, but Homer was mythological, and this explains everything, and Byron was not at all devoid of intimacy.
Most often, Gogol is so grandiosely lyrical in his description of nature; he surpasses himself when he talks about how wonderful the Dnieper is in calm weather, and the brightness of its colors and the sharpness of the picture again blinds us, and now we admire our blindness, and now we believe, we are convinced that in art there must be such lyricism, incomparably bright and even thunder-like. The face of nature for Gogol is like the face of an almost unnaturally beautiful woman - the same colors and the same objectivity, and now a wonderful Roman woman turns to a random passer-by “the snow of her face,” and the river weeps before him , like a mother seeing off her sons to war.
Gogol’s artistic gaze is a deliberate gaze, it snatches out only one aspect of reality, from this aspect - one particular person, from this person - one trait of his character and face, one habit and one gesture, one intonation of his voice and words of only one property...
Such is this unique, incredibly hyperbolic vigilance that forever ranked Gogol among the realists, elevating him to the creator of the realistic school in Russian literature.
There is a lot to think about about the origins of realism in art.
It will change a lot later, this school, it will undergo evolution along with everything that is included in the concept of reality and realism, but its amazing source, its almost unreal beginning will never lose its greatness and clear influence on all subsequent generations of writers.
(From the article “Reading Gogol”)