Phraseologism- this is a stable combination of words peculiar only to a given language, the meaning of which is not determined by the meaning of the words included in it, taken separately. Due to the fact that phraseological units cannot be translated literally (the meaning is lost), translation and understanding difficulties often arise. On the other hand, such phraseological units give the language a bright emotional coloring. Often the grammatical meaning of idioms does not meet the norms of the modern language, but are grammatical archaisms. An example of such expressions in Russian: “stay with the nose”, “beat the buckets”, “give back”, “play the fool”, “point of view”, etc.

The main features of phraseology. In order to separate a phraseological unit from other linguistic units, in particular from a word and a free phrase, it is necessary to determine the characteristic features of phraseological units.

1. Reproducibility of phraseological units in speech as finished units. Stable combinations exist in the language as a set of ready-made, previously created language formations that need to be remembered in the same way as we remember words.

2. The integrity of the meaning of phraseological units lies in the fact that, despite the dismemberment of the structure, they have a generalized holistic meaning, which, as a rule, is a rethinking of the phrase, which is based on a specific semantic content. Obvious examples of the fact that the meaning of a phraseological unit does not consist of the meanings of its components are stable combinations, one of the members of which is obsolete and is not used in modern language outside of this expression. However, the speaker does not have the feeling that this word is unfamiliar to him, since he knows the general, integral meaning of the entire phraseological unit. Such expressions in which it is possible to trace the connection between the general meaning of a stable combination and the values ​​of its constituent components also have a generalized holistic value.

3. The constancy of the component composition, stability distinguishes phraseological units from free phrases. A feature of stable combinations is that they are, as a rule, constant in composition and structure, i.e. they include certain words arranged in the prescribed order. The interchangeability of the components of a phraseological unit is possible only in general language phraseological variants, i.e. in stable combinations that have the same meaning, the same figurative structure, but differ in their lexical and grammatical composition.

4. Equivalence of a phraseological unit and a separate word means that a stable combination has a lot in common with the word. Like the word, it is a unit of the language, it is reproduced in finished form, and not created anew each time, it has an independent meaning and grammatical correlation, which lies in the fact that a phraseological unit, like a word, refers to a certain part of speech. It is possible to single out nominal phraseological turns (a shot sparrow is an experienced person), adjectives (there are not enough stars from the sky - about an ordinary, unremarkable person) verbal (become a dead end - find yourself in a difficult situation); adverbs (tirelessly - diligently, tirelessly), interjection (know ours! - about praising yourself). Many phraseological units correspond in meaning to one word (put on both shoulder blades - win). Set phrases are close to words in terms of their syntactic function, since they play the role of a separate member of a sentence. For example: She turned her head to more than one Adam's grandson (M. Lermontov);

5. Separate arrangement of phraseological units consists in the fact that it includes at least two verbal components, each of which is grammatically designed as an independent unit, i.e. has its own accent and its own ending. This is the main difference between phraseology and words.

6. Imagery of phraseology consists in the fact that many stable phrases do not just name phenomena, signs, objects, actions, but also contain a certain image. This applies primarily to those phraseological units, the meanings of which were formed on the basis of a linguistic metaphor, as a result of the similarity and comparison of two phenomena, of which one becomes the basis of comparison, and the other is compared with it. For example, the phraseological unit grated kalach, denoting an experienced person who has seen a lot in life, correlates with grated kalach (the name of one of the varieties of kalach), which, before baking, is rubbed and crumpled for a long time. This creates the figurativeness of phraseology. Some phraseological units of the Russian language are devoid of figurativeness. These include various kinds of semantically indivisible combinations, which are compound names and terms (such as coal, agenda, safety pin, eyeball), as well as phraseological units such as have a meaning, win.

7. Emotionally expressive coloring phraseological units is manifested in the fact that most phraseological units of the Russian language, in addition to the nominative function, also perform a characterological function: they not only name some objects, phenomena, actions that exist in objective reality, but at the same time evaluate the named objects, phenomena, actions. The emotional and expressive significance of phraseological units of the Russian language is different. Some of them have minimal expression (expressiveness), for example: to stand in the ears - "to be constantly heard." Others have a pronounced expression and serve as a means of emphasizing the assessment of what is being said. These are, for example: to beat with a key - "to flow violently, to manifest itself." The presence of emotionally expressive coloring in phraseological units can be traced on synonymous phraseological units, which, with a common meaning, can differ in their coloring. For example, about a person who knows how to do everything, they say a jack of all trades (positive assessment), from boredom of all trades (jokingly ironic assessment), and a shvets, and a reaper, and a playful player (jokingly ironic assessment).

8. Phraseology, the non-freeness of the meaning of one of the components is a characteristic feature of most stable combinations. For some phraseological units, it manifests itself in the fact that its component has a phraseologically related meaning in the language, the main features of which are the lack of semantic independence and dependence in the choice of lexical environment. For example, the phraseological meaning of the word "sworn" is manifested in the fact that it has its own meaning only in a certain lexical environment, in combination with the word "enemy": sworn enemy - "irreconcilable enemy" - and outside of this stable combination it is not used in Russian. The phraseological meaning of one of the components of a stable combination of another type is manifested in the fact that this component acquires a special phraseologically related meaning, only within the framework of this phraseological unit, and outside it it can have an independent meaning and be used in many free combinations. For example, the word "white" is used in the language with its own independent value in free combinations ( White paper, white snow), but only within the framework of a stable combination White crow it acquires its own special, phraseologically related meaning - "dissimilar to others, distinguished by something."

9. Idiomatic phraseology manifests itself in the fact that its semantically inseparable meaning is not derived from the meanings of its constituent components, taken separately, and does not coincide with them. Hence the impossibility of an accurate translation of phraseological unit into other languages ​​arises; this can be explained by the presence of specific laws inherent in this particular language. If free phrases are built mainly on general laws linguistic reflection of extralinguistic reality, then the use of words in the composition of a phraseological unit is determined by the specific laws of the system of a given language.

* Issues of the semantics of phraseological units have recently attracted more and more attention of researchers of phraseology, who, noting the specifics of their semantics, use a variety of names: a generalizing metaphorical meaning (S. A. Abakumov), semantic solidity (P. P. Kalinin), a single holistic meaning (V. V. Vinogradov), semantic idiomaticity (A. I. Smirnitsky), etc. Such an abundance of names to denote the semantic specificity of phraseological units reflects the undoubted complexity of this phenomenon, associated with insufficient knowledge of the issue itself.

The main feature of phraseological units is their completely or partially rethought meaning. Only a part of phraseological units is identified by separate lexemes, while most of them can be defined only with the help of a phrase or a detailed description. The semantic originality of the phraseological unit lies in the specifics of the combination of components, thus, they act not only as parts of the main semantic components of the phraseological unit, but also as links between them. These components are the minimum semantic units of phraseological units and perform meaning-defining or meaning-forming functions.

* The classification of phraseological units is based on the sign of the semantic unity of the components, the lesser or greater motivation of the meaning of the phraseological unit. Following Academician V. V. Vinogradov, it is customary to distinguish three main types: phraseological fusions, phraseological units and phraseological combinations.

Phraseological unions- these are phraseological units that are indecomposable in meaning, their holistic meaning is absolutely not motivated by the meanings of the component words, for example: beat the thumbs, get into a mess, sharpen lyases, turuses on wheels, headlong, etc. Phraseological fusions often include words that are not used independently in modern Russian.

Phraseological units- these are such phraseological units, the integral meaning of which is motivated by the meanings of their components. Examples of unities: pull the strap, swim shallowly, bury talent in the ground, suck it out of your finger, lead by the nose, etc. One of characteristic features phraseological units - their figurativeness. The presence of figurativeness distinguishes phraseological units from homonymous free combinations of glories. So, in the sentence The boy soaped his head with toilet soap, the combination soaped his head is free, it has a direct meaning and is devoid of any imagery; in the sentence I am afraid that the boss will soap his head for being late, the combination lathered his head is used figuratively and represents a phraseological unity.

Phraseological combinations- these are such phraseological units, the holistic meaning of which is made up of the meaning of the components, and at the same time one of the components has the so-called associated use. To understand what the associated usage is, consider the turns: fear takes, envy takes, anger takes. The verb to take used in these phrases is not combined with any name of feelings, but only with some, for example: one cannot say “joy takes”, “pleasure takes”. This use of the verb is called connected (or phraseologically related). Related is the use of the word delicate in turnovers a delicate issue, a delicate matter; with other nouns, even close in meaning to the words question and deed, the adjective ticklish does not combine.

As in phraseological unions, many words that are part of phraseological combinations do not have free meanings at all and exist in the language only as part of phraseological units. For example, the words to downcast, pitch black in modern Russian function only as part of phraseological combinations: lower your eyes, lower your eyes, pitch hell, pitch darkness.

Such turns of phrase, in which the word is used in a non-free, phraseologically related meaning, are called phraseological combinations.

The semantics of a phraseological unit largely depends on its structural organization. Some phraseological units are formed according to the phrase scheme: puzzle, and others - according to the sentence scheme: hands itch (who?), the sky seemed like a sheepskin (to whom?). Phraseologisms of the first group have the greatest functional and semantic similarity with the word.

Phraseologisms formed according to the model of a non-predicative phrase can be single-valued and polysemantic, capable of entering into synonymous and antonymic relations, combined into thematic series on the basis of semantic commonality, etc.

The vast majority of phraseological units are unambiguous. The development of polysemy is hindered by the fact that phraseological units are often formed as a result of a metaphorical rethinking of free phrases of the same composition. As a result of repeated metaphorization of the same free phrase, such polysemantic phraseological units appear that have only metaphorical meanings. For example, the phraseologism to wag the tail means:

1. "cunning, cunning"; “You, brother, I'm sorry, I'm a taiga man, straight, I can't cunning, I can't wag my tail” (Yu.M. Shestakov);
2. “to hesitate in choosing a solution, to evade a direct answer”: “Speak up! Do not wag your tail ... a bag of saddlebags ”(M.E. Sltykov-Shchedrin);
3. (before whom?) "to seek someone's disposition by flattery, servility." “Because of your personal, one might say, family calculations, wag your tail in front of the factory owner ...” (D.N. Mamin-Sibiryak).

Polysemy is most typical for verbal and adverbial constructions as the most common, to a lesser extent - for nominal (adjective, etc.).

Separate phraseological units are able to combine opposite meanings. For example, the verb turnover turns in the head can mean:

1. "constantly conscious, disturbing the mind." “A chaotic dream was spinning in my head, which was interrupted several times at night by awakenings” (MA Bulgakov);
2. “I don’t remember at all”: “It seems that it’s so easy to remember, it’s spinning in my head, painfully close spinning, but I don’t know what exactly. You can’t grab it in any way ”(V. Garm).

Antonymic relations in phraseology are less developed than synonymic ones. Only phraseological units enter into antonymic relations, correlative according to some feature - qualitative, quantitative, temporal, spatial and belonging to the same category of objective reality as mutually exclusive concepts.

Antonymy of phraseological units is often supported by antonymic connections of their lexical synonyms: seven spans in the forehead (smart) - will not invent gunpowder (stupid); blood with milk (ruddy) - not a blood in the face (pale).

Antonymic phraseological units are allocated into a special group, partially coinciding in composition, but having components that are opposed in meaning: with a heavy heart - with a light heart. Components that give such phraseological units the opposite meaning are often lexical antonyms. But they can get the opposite meaning only as part of phraseological units (face - back).

The most striking semantic feature of phraseological units is their ability to enter into synonymous connections and relationships with each other: to lead by the nose, to fool the head - to act dishonestly, to deceive someone.

Phraseological synonymy is rich and varied. In Russian, there are about 800 synonymic rows. Phraseological synonyms are understood as phraseological units with extremely close meanings, correlative, as a rule, with one part of speech, having similar or identical compatibility.

Phraseological synonyms can be single-structured, multi-structured and similar-structured. Single-structural synonyms are formed according to the same model: the Kolomna verst and the fire tower - according to the model “ex. in them. p. + adj.». Synonyms of different structure are built according to different models: headlong, from a bay-floundering, with eyes closed. In similarly structured synonyms, the grammatically dominant component of a phraseological unit is expressed by one part of speech, and all the rest are differently designed: hang your head, lose heart - become discouraged, despair.

Phraseologisms included in the synonymic series can differ in shades of meaning, stylistic coloring, and sometimes all these features at the same time.

Due to polysemy, phraseological units can have synonymous connections in each meaning. In the Russian language, there are extensive synonymous series with common meanings: “to reprimand in harsh terms”: give heat, set a couple, remove shavings, lather your head, give a light.

Many synonymic rows are semantically close. So, phraseological synonyms do not take an extra step, do not hit a finger on a finger (do not make the slightest effort) intersect with two other synonymous rows: beat the buckets, fool around, spit on the ceiling (indulge in idleness, laziness) and cut the pavement, polish the boulevards, elephants to loiter (walk, loiter around).

Phraseological synonymy not only approaches lexical synonymy, but also differs from it. Phraseologisms are much poorer than words in lexico-grammatical terms. So, among phraseological units there is no actual pronominal category, in rare cases phraseological units correlate with the full forms of adjectives. At the same time, phraseological synonyms often convey such aspects of reality that cannot be expressed lexical synonymy. For example, the phraseological units of the synonymous series the wind whistles in the pockets (who?), an empty pocket (who?), not a penny for the soul (who?) can only be interpreted by a detailed description “no one has any money, there are completely no or signs of prosperity.

Phraseological synonyms diverge from lexical and stylistic: phraseological units are more stylistic homogeneity than words of free use. This is due to the fact that phraseological units are mainly characterized by emotionally expressive coloring.

*The main property of a phraseological unit (PU) as a component of a language system is, first of all, the property of compatibility with other units.

PhU can have a single, narrow or wide compatibility, depending on the semantics of the characterized verb. Phraseologism in all eyes (in both, in both eyes) is combined with the verbs of visual perception of the semantic category of action, which indicates its narrow lexical-semantic compatibility: Various monovalent, divalent, trivalent, etc. PhUs are characterized only in relation to the number of joining verbs, i.e. only the quantitative aspect of valence is taken into account. The qualitative side of valence, determined by the nature of the semantic relationships between the combined units, is not disclosed in this approach, which necessitates further searches in the field of "power" possibilities of phraseological units. In addition, in some cases in a scientific linguistic text it is possible to use only one of the two terms, which indicates a distinction between their use and functions: valence possibilities / compatibility abilities, ability to combine, verbal valence (but not compatibility). The use of the term "valency" is recommended in order to avoid ambiguity and ambiguity: compatibility, as we found out, is divided into several types according to different criteria. "Valence" more successfully meets the requirements for terms, and helps to avoid ambiguity and achieve the accuracy of the name - in the context of our work - "verbal valency of phraseological unit".

*The main part of the phraseological resources of the Russian language consists of phraseological units of native Russian origin. Among the phraseological units of a colloquial nature, there are a significant number of those whose source is professional speech, for example: to sharpen laces, without a hitch and without a hitch (from the professional speech of carpenters), leave the stage, play first violin (from the speech of actors, musicians).

Single phraseological units got into the literary language from jargon, for example, the turn to rub glasses is a cheating expression.

In the sphere of everyday and colloquial speech, turns have constantly arisen and arise, in which various historical events and customs of the Russian people are socially evaluated. For example, the phraseologism put (or put off) in a long box is associated with the name of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (XVII century), on whose orders a box for petitions was installed in front of the palace in Kolomenskoye, but such an innovation did not eliminate the red tape, and the people accordingly reflected this fact: to put it on the back burner means to delay consideration of the issue for an indefinite period.

In addition to phraseological units, the origin of which is connected with colloquial speech, there are a significant number of phraseological units of book origin, both Russian and borrowed. Among them are very old ones, borrowed from liturgical books, for example: seek and you will find, the holy of holies, the fiend of hell, in the image and likeness, etc.

The phraseology of the Russian language is actively replenished with popular expressions literary origin. For example, the sword of Damocles, the Gordian knot, Procrustean bed - from ancient mythology; the expression from a beautiful far away belongs to N.V. Gogol; affairs of bygone days.

In addition to primordially Russian phraseological units, there are phraseological units of foreign origin. These are usually tracing papers from foreign phraseological units, for example: to remain silent (from Latin).

* The figurative and expressive possibilities of Russian phraseology can hardly be overestimated. A lot has been written and written by linguists about the stylistic possibilities of phraseological units. But language material, so attractive for any writer or publicist, is not so easy to make serve effectively and with dignity. The stylistic functioning of idiomatic expressions has one extremely important feature, which was once written about by an outstanding linguist, Professor B. L. Larin. “As the light of the morning is reflected in a drop of dew”, so, according to the scientist, phraseological units reflect not only the historically established views of the people, but also social order, the ideology of the era that calls them to life.

In 1955, the collection " Winged words» N.S. Ashukina and M.G. Ashukina (3rd ed. M., 1966). Collected in the book a large number of literary quotations and figurative expressions arranged in alphabetical order. Availability alphabetical index at the end of the book allows you to use it as a reference.

Russian phraseology is presented with great completeness in the edition published in 1967, edited by A.I. Molotkov "Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language", containing over 4000 dictionary entries (3rd ed. 1978; 4th ed. 1986). Phraseologisms are given with possible variants of components, an interpretation of the meaning is given and forms of use in speech are indicated. Each of the meanings is illustrated with quotes from fiction. In some cases, etymological information is given.

In 1975, the dictionary-reference book “Stable verb-nominal phrases of the Russian language” by V.M. Deribas. This manual contains over 5,000 set phrases, arranged according to their two components (verb - noun). In 1980, the School Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language was published by V.P. Zhukov, containing about 2000 of the most common phraseological units found in literature and oral speech. In 1997, the Dictionary of Paraphrases of the Russian Language (Based on Newspaper Journalism) (A.B. Novikov) was published, in which turns are given for the type in the suit of Adam (naked), blue helmets (UN armed forces), black gold (oil) and etc.

Phraseology in the broad sense of the term also includes proverbs and sayings. The most complete collection of Russian proverbs is the collection "Proverbs of the Russian people" by V.I. Dahl, published in 1861-1862. (reissued in 1957). In 1966, the Dictionary of Russian Proverbs and Sayings was published by V.P. Zhukov (3rd ed. M., 1967), containing about 1000 proverbs and sayings, arranged alphabetically by the first word. In 1981, R.I. Yarantseva (2nd ed. M., 1985), which included about 800 phraseological units.

Phraseologism

Phraseologism (phraseological turn, phraseme) - stable in composition and structure, lexically indivisible and integral in meaning, a phrase or sentence that performs the function of a separate lexeme (vocabulary unit). Often phraseologism remains the property of only one language; the exception is the so-called phraseological tracing paper. Phraseologisms are described in special phraseological dictionaries.

Phraseologism is used as a whole that is not subject to further decomposition and usually does not allow rearrangement of its parts within itself. The semantic fusion of phraseological units can vary within a fairly wide range: from the non-derivation of the meaning of a phraseological unit from its constituent words in phraseological fusions ( idioms) to phraseological combinations with a meaning arising from the meanings that make up the combination. The transformation of a phrase into a stable phraseological unit is called lexicalization.

The concept of phraseological units (fr. unite phraseologique) as a stable phrase, the meaning of which cannot be deduced from the meanings of its constituent words, was first formulated by the Swiss linguist Charles Bally in his work Precis de stylistique, where he contrasted them with another type of phrases - phraseological groups (fr. series phraseologiques) with a variable combination of components. Later V. V. Vinogradov singled out three main types of phraseological units: phraseological fusions(idioms), phraseological units And phraseological combinations. N. M. Shansky also identifies an additional species - phraseological expressions.

Different scientists interpret the concept of phraseologism and its properties in different ways, however, the most consistently distinguished by various scientific properties of phraseological units are

• reproducibility
• stability,
• overwordiness (separately formalized).
• belonging to the nominative inventory of the language.

Phraseological fusions (idioms)

Phraseological fusion, or idiom (from the Greek. ἴδιος “own, characteristic”) is a semantically indivisible phrase, the meaning of which is not at all deducible from the meanings of its constituent components. For example, sodom and gomorrah- "turmoil, noise."

Often the grammatical forms and meanings of idioms are not determined by the norms and realities of the modern language, that is, such fusions are lexical and grammatical archaisms. For example, idioms beat the buckets- "to mess around" (in the original meaning - "to split a log into blanks for making household wooden items") and slipshod- "carelessly" reflect the realities of the past, absent in the present (in the past, they were characterized by metaphor). In adhesions from small to large, without hesitation preserved archaic grammatical forms.

Phraseological units

Phraseological unity is a stable turnover, each of its words is used in direct and in parallel in figurative meanings. Figurative meaning and constitutes the content of phraseological unity. Phraseological unity is a trope with a metaphorical meaning For example, "go with the flow", "throw the bait", "reel the bait", fall for the bait", "get caught in the net". Phraseological units include all the expressions of all the scriptures of the world. Since the absolute most people perceive the direct meaning of expressions, then they do not understand the ideas of the scriptures.For example, "Pigs love to swim in the mud. "This expression is a statement of an observable sensually perceived fact - the truth of science. However, as in all scriptures world, this expression in its content has not a rational thought, but an irrational idea. Rational thought is based on the perception of feelings, and irrational idea draws knowledge from the spirit. Irrational idea - pure idea. It is cleared of sensory information. The information of sensory perception is inaccessible to the ideas of phraseological units. This is the main problem of understanding - hermeneutics. Unlike idioms, unities are motivated by the realities of the modern language and can allow the insertion of other words between their parts in speech: for example, bring (oneself, him, someone) to a white heat, pour water on a mill (something or someone) And pour water on (one's own, someone else's, etc.) mill. Examples: come to a standstill, beat the key, to go with the flow, keep a stone in one's bosom, lead by the nose.

Phraseological combinations

A phraseological combination (collocation) is a stable turnover, which includes words both with a free meaning and with phraseologically related, non-free (used only in this combination). Phraseological combinations are stable turns, but their holistic meaning follows from the meanings of their individual words.

Unlike phraseological fusions and unities, combinations are semantically divisible - their composition allows limited synonymous substitution or replacement of individual words, while one of the members of the phraseological combination turns out to be constant, while the others are variable: for example, in phrases burn with love, hate, shame, impatience word burn down is a constant member with a phraseologically related meaning.

As variable members of the combination, a limited range of words can be used, determined by semantic relations within the language system: for example, the phraseological combination burn with passion is a hypernym for combinations of the type burn from..., while due to the variation of the variable part, the formation of synonymous series is possible burn with shame, disgrace, disgrace, burn with jealousy, thirst for revenge.

Phraseological expressions

Phraseological expressions are phraseological phrases that are stable in their composition and use, which are not only semantically articulated, but also consist entirely of words with a free nominative meaning. Their only feature is reproducibility: they are used as ready-made speech units with a constant lexical composition and certain semantics.

Often a phraseological expression is a complete sentence with a statement, edification or conclusion. Examples of such phraseological expressions are proverbs and aphorisms. If there is no edification in the phraseological expression or there are elements of understatement, then this is a saying or a catchphrase. Another source of phraseological expressions is professional speech. Speech cliches also fall into the category of phraseological expressions - stable formulas like best wishes, see you again and so on.

Many linguists do not classify phraseological expressions as phraseological units, since they lack the main features of phraseological units. no suggestions for example

Melchuk's classification

1. The language unit affected by phraseologization:
   • lexeme ( shepherd with suffix - rotten),
   • phrase ( exaggerated authority, English red herring),
   • syntactic phrase (sentences differing in prosody: You I have to read this book And You are in my house read this book).
2. Participation of pragmatic factors in the process of phraseologization:
   • pragmatems related to the extralinguistic situation ( best before date, English best before),
   • semantic phrases ( kick back).
3. Component of a linguistic sign subject to phraseologization:
   • signified ( beat the buckets),
   • signifier (suppletive units in morphology: person people),
   • syntax of the sign itself He sort of laughed).
4. Degree of phraseology:
   • full phrases (= idioms) (eng. kick the bucket),
   • semi-phrases (=collocations) (eng. land a job),
   • quasi-phrases ham and eggs).

In general, as a result of such a calculation, Melchuk singles out 3 × 2 × 3 × 3 = 54 types of phrases.

see also

• Semantic classification of English phraseological units

Notes

Literature

• Amosova N. N. Fundamentals of English phraseology. - L., 1963
• Arsent'eva E.F. Phraseology and Phraseography in Comparative Aspect (on the Material of Russian and English Languages). - Kazan, 2006
• Valgina N. S., Rosenthal D. E., Fomina M. I. Modern Russian language. 6th ed. - M.: "Logos", 2002
• Kunin A. V. Course of phraseology of modern English. - 2nd ed., revised. - M., 1996
• Mokienko V. M. Slavic phraseology. 2nd ed., Spanish. and additional - M., 1989
• Teliya VN Russian Phraseology: Semantic, Pragmatic and Linguistic and Cultural Aspects. - M., 1996
• Baranov A.N., Dobrovolsky D.O. Aspects of the theory of phraseology / A.N. Baranov, D.O. Dobrovolsky. – M.: Znak, 2008. – 656 p.
• Vereshchagin E.M., Kostomarov V.G. Language and culture. Three linguistic and cultural concepts: lexical background, speech-behavioral tactics and sapientema / E.M. Vereshchagin, V.G. Kostomarov; under. ed. Yu.S. Stepanova. – M.: Indrik, 2005. – 1040 p.
• Vinogradov V.V. Phraseology. Semasiology // Lexicology and lexicography. Selected works. - M .: Nauka, 1977. - 118-161 p.
• Shansky N.M. Phraseology of the modern Russian language / N.M. Shansky. - 3rd ed., Rev. and additional - M., 1985. - 160 p.

Links

• Phraseological units (idioms) in English. archived (English) . Archived from the original on November 27, 2012. (Russian). Archived from the original on November 27, 2012.
• Michelson's Big Dictionary of Explanatory Phraseology. Archived from the original on November 27, 2012.
• Dictionary of phraseological units and set expressions. Archived from the original on November 27, 2012.
• Wiki dictionary of phraseological units. Archived from the original on November 27, 2012.
• Dictionary of phraseological units of the Russian language. Archived from the original on November 27, 2012.
• Dictionary of phraseological units with illustrations. Archived from the original on November 27, 2012.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

Phraseological combinations

Phraseological combinations are called such stable turns, the general meaning of which completely depends on the meaning of the constituent words. Words in a phraseological combination retain relative semantic independence, however, they are not free and show their meaning only in conjunction with a certain, closed circle of words, for example: the word is tearfully combined only with the words ask, beg. Consequently, one of the members of the phraseological combination turns out to be more stable and even constant, the other - variable. The presence of permanent and variable members in combination noticeably distinguishes them from adhesions and unities. The meaning of constant members (components) is phraseologically related. For example, in combinations, burn with shame and longing, it takes constant burns and takes, since it is these words that will turn out to be the main (core) elements in other phraseological combinations: burn - from shame, from shame, from disgrace; burn - from love; burn - from impatience, envy; takes - longing, meditation; takes - annoyance, anger; takes - fear, horror; takes - envy; beret - hunting; takes - laughter. The use of other components is impossible (cf.: “burn with joy”, “takes a smile”), this is due to the existing semantic relationships within the language system. The meanings of such words are phraseologically related in the system of these revolutions (see § 2), i.e. are implemented only with a certain range of words.

Phraseological combinations differ from phraseological unions and unities in that they are not absolutely lexically indivisible. Despite the phraseological isolation of this type of phrase, even lexically non-free components can be replaced by a synonym without prejudice to the general phraseological meaning (cf. ). This creates favorable conditions for the emergence of variants of phraseological units, and often synonyms.

The syntactic connections of words in such turns of phrase correspond to the existing norms, according to which free phrases are also created. However, unlike the latter, these connections are stable, indecomposable and always reproduced in the same form, semantically inherent in one or another phraseological unit.

Phraseological combinations are quite numerous in composition and very common in use group.

Gogol began his creative activity as a romantic. However, he turned to critical realism, opened a new chapter in it. As a realist artist, Gogol developed under the noble influence of Pushkin, but was not a simple imitator of the founder of new Russian literature.

The originality of Gogol was that he was the first to give the broadest image of the county landowner-bureaucratic Russia and the "little man", a resident of St. Petersburg corners.

Gogol was a brilliant satirist who scourged the "vulgarity of a vulgar person", exposing to the utmost the social contradictions of contemporary Russian reality.

The social orientation of Gogol is also reflected in the composition of his works. The plot and plot conflict in them are not love and family circumstances, but events of social significance. At the same time, the plot serves only as an excuse for a broad depiction of everyday life and the disclosure of characters-types.

Deep insight into the essence of the main socio-economic phenomena of his contemporary life allowed Gogol, a brilliant artist of the word, to draw images of enormous generalizing power.

The goals of a vivid satirical depiction of heroes are served by Gogol's careful selection of many details and their sharp exaggeration. So, for example, portraits of the heroes of "Dead Souls" were created. These details in Gogol are mostly everyday: things, clothes, housing of heroes. If in Gogol's romantic stories emphatically picturesque landscapes are given, giving the work a certain elation of tone, then in his realistic works, especially in "Dead Souls", the landscape is one of the means of depicting types, characteristics of heroes. Theme, social orientation and ideological coverage of the phenomena of life and the characters of people determined the originality of Gogol's literary speech. The two worlds depicted by the writer - the folk collective and the "existents" - determined the main features of the writer's speech: his speech is enthusiastic, imbued with lyricism when he talks about the people, about the homeland (in "Evenings ...", in "Taras Bulba ”, in the lyrical digressions of “Dead Souls”), then it becomes close to live colloquial (in everyday paintings and scenes of “Evenings ...” or in narratives about bureaucratic landowner Russia).

The originality of Gogol's language lies in the wider use of common language, dialectisms, and Ukrainianisms than that of his predecessors and contemporaries.

Gogol loved and subtly felt folk colloquial speech, skillfully applied all its shades to characterize his heroes and phenomena of public life.

The character of a person, his social status, profession - all this is unusually clearly and accurately revealed in the speech of Gogol's characters.

The strength of Gogol the stylist is in his humor. In his articles on Dead Souls, Belinsky showed that Gogol's humor "consists in opposition to the ideal of life with the reality of life." He wrote: "Humor is the most powerful tool of the spirit of negation, which destroys the old and prepares the new."

Will the time come (Come desired!). When will the people not Blucher And not my lord stupid, Belinsky and Gogol From the market will suffer? N. Nekrasov The work of Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol goes far beyond national and historical boundaries. His works...

Gogol is a great realist writer, whose work has become firmly established in Russian classical literature. His originality lies in the fact that he was one of the first to give the broadest image of the county landowner-bureaucratic Russia. In his poem "The Dead...

Although the concept of genre is constantly changing and becoming more complex, a genre can be understood as a historically developing type of literary work, which has certain features. According to these features, the main idea of ​​​​the work becomes clear, and we are about ...

Feeding his chest with hatred, Arming his lips with satire, He passes thorny path With his punishing lyre. From all sides they curse him, And, only seeing his corpse, How much he did, they will understand, And how he loved - hating! ON THE....

My God, how sad is our Russia! A. S. Pushkin. There is no doubt that Gogol's laughter originated long before Gogol: in Fonvizin's comedy, in Krylov's fables, in Pushkin's epigrams, in Griboedov's representatives of the Famus society. What was Gogol laughing at?...

From the Pushkin era to Gogol period history of Russian literature. Becoming a writer (1809-1830). Gogol entered Russian literature of the golden age, when it had already reached its peak. To win over readers and become on a par with Pushkin, Zhukovsky, Griboyedov, it was not enough to have a huge talent. I had to suffer my own theme, create my own unique picture of life.

The struggle of impersonal reality for the human soul, the attempt of evil on it, became a through theme of Gogol's creativity. Evil has a truly diabolical ability to change masks. In one era it seems demonically powerful, in another it pretends to be gray and inconspicuous. But if the struggle stops, humanity will face spiritual death. Literature is the field of this battle, the writer is able to influence its outcome.

Gogol's literary weapon in the romantic struggle for the fate of the world was soul-purifying laughter "through invisible tears, unknown to the world." His laughter does not just satirically castigate social vices and does not just make the reader condescendingly, with humor, treat natural human shortcomings and small weaknesses. It can be joyful, and sad, and tragic, and carefree, and caustic, and kind. He washes away everything superficial, everything vulgar from life, returns it to the radiant foundation laid in every thing, in every living being by God. And you have to pay the highest price for it - the price of the boundless pain that the writer passes through his heart. (It was precisely in this that Gogol was in many respects close to the late German romanticists, primarily to Hoffmann.) last years life and work, Gogol will increasingly resort to lyrical preaching, directly addressing the reader, trying to inspire him with “good thoughts” and show him the way to correction.

Ultimately, Gogol, as a writer, came close to the line that separates the literature of the new time from religious service. Art for the late Gogol is no longer so much "a deceit that elevates us" as a direct mouthpiece of truth, an echo of Divine truth. Why, then, was he unable to complete his great novel Dead Souls, the overarching task of which was the “correction” of all of Russia? Why did Gogol's last years pass under the sign of the most severe creative and spiritual crisis? An exhaustive answer to these questions is simply impossible. There is a secret human life, the secret of the soul, the secret of the writer's path, which every person, every artist takes with him. But you can and should think about them. Just don't be in a hurry. First, let us recall how Gogol's personal fate and creative biography developed.

The estate of the Ukrainian landowners Gogol-Yanovsky was located in a fertile region covered with historical legends - in the Poltava region. From the very first years of his life, Gogol absorbed two national cultures- Ukrainian and Russian. He loved Little Russian folklore, knew well the work of Little Russian writers. For example, Ivan Kotlyarevsky, the author of a comic adaptation of Virgil's epic poem "Aeneid":

Aeneas was a troublesome lad
And the lad, even where a Cossack,
On tricks nimble, unlucky,
He eclipsed the note revelers.
When Troy in a formidable battle
Compared to a heap of dung
He grabbed the knapsack and gave it a pull;
Taking the Trojans with you,
skinhead bastards,
And he showed the Greeks heels ...

Gogol's father, Vasily Afanasyevich, himself in free time wrote. Mother, Maria Ivanovna, nee Kosyarovskaya, raised her six children in a strictly religious spirit. The young Gogol knew the Bible well and was especially keenly aware of the prophecies of the Apocalypse (the final book of the New Testament) about the last times of mankind, the coming of the Antichrist and the Last Judgment. Subsequently, these childhood experiences will echo in his disturbing and exciting prose.

From 1821 to 1828 Gogol studied at the newly opened Gymnasium of Higher Sciences in the city of Nizhyn. It was good gymnasium: teachers together with students put on school plays; Gogol painted scenery, played serious and comic roles. And yet, an active character, carefully concealed ambition did not give Gogol peace. He dreamed of a state career, wanted to become a lawyer (“Injustice, the greatest misfortune in the world, tore my heart,” he wrote to P.P. Kosyarovsky in 1827) and, naturally, thought about moving to St. Petersburg.

Ho northern capital great empire quickly cooled the southern ardor of the young provincial. It was not possible to settle down for a profitable service; there was not enough money; his literary debut - the semi-student poetic idyll "Hanz Kühelgarten", published under the pseudonym V. Alov, aroused friendly ridicule from the capital's critics. In a gloomy mood, the twenty-year-old writer burns copies of the unsold edition, as bridges are burned behind them. Suddenly leaves St. Petersburg abroad, to Germany. Returns just as suddenly. Trying to be an actor. Until, finally, he enters the clerical service.

From now on, this convulsiveness of actions, nervous overstrain will precede bursts of creative activity (and later, as if to replace it). Already in 1830, the first Gogol story "Bisavryuk, or Evening on the Eve of Ivan Kupala" was published, which marked the beginning of the brilliant cycle "Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka" (1831-1832).

"Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka". Tales published by the beekeeper Rudy Pank ”(1829-1831). Gogol's stories from little Russian life, sometimes scary, sometimes frivolous, very colorful and melodious, appeared just in time. “Everyone rejoiced at this vivid description of a singing and dancing tribe,” wrote Pushkin, who supported Gogol until his death in 1837. (Even the plots of two of Gogol's main works, the comedy The Inspector General and the novel Dead Souls, were generously presented to their author by Pushkin.)

Gogol attributed the authorship of the stories of the cycle to Rudy Pank, a simpleton and joker. At the same time, invisible characters-narrators seem to be hidden in the texts of the stories. This is the sexton Foma Grigoryevich, who believes in his terrible stories, inherited from his grandfather (and to him, in due time, from his grandfather's aunt). And some "pea panich". He loves Dikanka, but he was brought up on "books" (Foma Grigoryevich considers him a "Muscovite"). And Stepan Ivanovich Kurochka from Gadyach...

All of them, with the exception of the well-read "pea panich", are naive. And Rudy Panko, with each new story, reveals less and less innocence and more and more literary slyness. In addition, the image of the provincially cheerful, folk and semi-fairytale Dikanka is shaded in the Evenings cycle by the image of the grandiose, regal (but also semi-fairytale) Petersburg. Only a beekeeper, who grew up here, knows everyone, is connected with everyone, can truly tell about the life of Dikanka from the inside. A metropolitan writer, some kind of "pea panich", is beyond his power. And vice versa, only a serious writer can tell about the "big" world, about St. Petersburg, - well-read, involved in "high" culture. So it turns out that Panko is not so much a “full-fledged” character, like Pushkin’s Belkin, as a literary mask of Gogol himself, who felt himself equally a Petersburger and a native of Dikanka (the estate under that name, which belonged to Count Kochubey, was located nearby from Vasilevka).

Russian literature was waiting for the appearance of just such a romantic writer, capable of recreating a vivid local color, preserving in prose the free breath of his small homeland, a fresh sense of the province, but at the same time striving to fit the image of the outskirts into a vast cultural context. Most readers immediately realized that Gogol was not limited to “literary painting”, colorful details of Ukrainian life, “tasty” Little Russian words and phrases. His goal is to depict Dikanka both realistically and fantastically, as a small universe, from where one can see in all directions of the world.

Gogol's cycle "Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka" you have already studied. Ho now, with an in-depth repetition, let's try to rediscover it for ourselves. Let's re-read two stories from "Evenings ...", which in their style seem polar, opposite in everything - "The Night Before Christmas" and "Ivan Fedorovich Shponka and His Aunt".

As it should be in a story that is directly related to the folklore tradition and shrouded fabulous atmosphere, main character"Nights before Christmas" blacksmith Vakula must defeat evil spirits, turn the enemy-devil into a magical assistant.

All the heroes of the cycle live and act in different eras. Some (like Petrus from the story "The Evening on the Eve of Ivan Kupala") - in a terrible and majestic antiquity, when evil reigned supreme over the world. Others (like Vakula) in the conditional golden age of Catherine the Great, on the eve of the abolition of the Zaporozhian freemen, when magic was no longer as formidable as in mythological times. Witches and demons are sometimes simply ridiculous. The devil, on which Vakula travels, is “completely German in front”, with a narrow, fidgety muzzle, a round snout, and thin legs. He looks more like a "nimble dandy with a tail" than a devil. And what is funny can no longer be scary.

In addition, Vakula does not come into contact with evil spirits ever, namely on the night before Christmas. In the semi-folklore world of "Evenings ...", the closer to Christmas and Easter, the more active the evil - and the weaker it is. Christmas Eve gives evil spirits last chance"to play pranks", and she also puts a limit to these "pranks", for everywhere they are already caroling and glorifying Christ.

It is no coincidence that an episode with the Cossacks-Cossacks, who arrived in St. Petersburg to Catherine II, appears in the plot of the story. The fact is that soon after this meeting, the Empress will abolish the Zaporozhian Sich. That is, the romantic era will end, not only the mythical antiquity, which belongs to the heroes of the “terrible” stories of the cycle, will cease to exist (“ Terrible revenge”, “Evening on the eve of Ivan Kupala”), but also the legendary past that belongs to cheerful and lucky heroes like Vakula. The path to a fearless but boring modernity is open. The little child of the blacksmith and Oksana is destined to live in a world where adventures like those that befell Vakula will no longer be possible, because the old days will finally move from reality to the realm of Rudy Panka's fables...

It is in this era that Ivan Fedorovich Shponka falls to live - the main character of the story told to the narrator Stepan Ivanovich Kurochka from Gadyach. Because of his bad memory, the simple-hearted narrator writes down the plot, but (recall Belkin's Tale again) his old woman exhausts half the notebook into pies, so that the narration breaks off in the middle. This break in the storyline sharply enhances the impression of randomness, inappropriateness, coming from the story, about a worthless hero, so unlike the rest - the bright, colorful characters of "Evenings ...".

The story about Ivan Fedorovich is based on the method of a deceived expectation. The reader of "Evenings ..." has already managed to get used to certain regularities of the plot ( domestic scene often crowned with a fantastic outcome; fantasy is reduced to the level household parts). He expects the same from the story "Ivan Fedorovich Shponka and his aunt", intuitively bringing it closer to The Night Before Christmas.

In vain. The only event throughout the story that goes beyond the ordinary is Ivan Fedorovich's dream. Having fallen in love with the younger of the two sisters of his neighbor Storchenko, Shponka thinks with horror: what is a wife? And really, having married, he will no longer be alone, but there will always be two of them? The dream he had that night is terrible. Then a goose-faced wife appears to him; then there are several wives, and they are everywhere - in a hat, in a pocket; then the aunt is no longer an aunt, but the bell tower, Shponka himself is the bell, and the rope with which they drag him to the bell tower is the wife; then the merchant offers him to buy fashionable matter - "wife". But sleep is allowed to nothing - the manuscript of the story is cut off.

Creating the image of Ivan Fedorovich, Gogol outlines a new type of hero, who will soon be at the center of his artistic world. This is a hero torn from a semi-fabulous time and placed in a modern space, in a shredded era. He is not connected with anything but everyday life - neither with good nor with evil. And, oddly enough, this is a complete "loss" modern man from whole world, this final “liberation” from the power of the fears of hoary antiquity, this separation from Dikanka (Ivan Fedorovich has nothing to do with her at all!) makes him defenseless from evil in a new way. It can freely invade the "empty" consciousness of the hero (remember Shponka's terrible dream) and shake him to the ground.

Tiny Dikanka in the image of Gogol is truly universal. If the healthy and natural principle of public life has been preserved in it, it means that it has not disappeared from the world as a whole. And vice versa, if it imperceptibly, gradually began to disintegrate ancient ties, if every day it becomes a little less fabulous, a little more prosaic, insipid - all the more this applies to everything around.

The second cycle of stories "Mirgorod" Tales, which serve as a continuation of "Evenings on a farm near Dikanka" (1832-1834). Taras Bulba. Success could well turn the head of a young writer. Ho Gogol did not stop there and continued to search for new themes, plots, heroes. He tried to study Ukrainian folklore as an ethnographer, even tried to take the chair of general history at Kiev University, but his mobile and very nervous nature excluded the possibility of unhurried office work. Moreover, secretly from his closest friends, he has already begun work on the next prose cycle. Later, this cycle would be called "Mirgorod", but initially the "Mirgorod" stories appeared in the collection "Arabesques" along with several works, which in 1842 Gogol would unite in the cycle of "Petersburg stories".

The clash of terrible antiquity with boring (but no less terrible) modernity becomes here the main artistic principle. There are two parts in the Mirgorod cycle, each with two stories, one of them from the Gogol era, the other from the legendary past. Stories from the “Gogol” era are close in style to the “natural” manner of “Ivan Fedorovich Shponka and his aunt”, stories from the legendary past are written in the same romantically upbeat spirit as “Terrible Revenge” or “The Evening on the Eve of Ivan Kupala” . The composition of the cycle is also verified to the millimeter. The first part opens with a "modern" story ("Old World Landowners"), and ends with a "legendary" one ("Taras Bulba"). The second opens with the "legendary" ("Viy"), and ends with the "modern" ("The Tale of how Ivan Ivanovich quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich"). As if time, having described a circle, returns to the same point - to the point of complete disappearance of meaning.

Let us dwell in more detail on only one, "legendary", mustard gas well-known to you story "Taras Bulba". Having understood how it works, we will understand how other stories of Mirgorod are arranged.

There is such a literary concept - artistic time. That is, the time that is depicted by the writer. It looks and doesn't look real. historical time; it can flow faster or slower than real time, it can swap past, present and future, or combine them into a bizarre whole. For example, the hero acts in the present, but suddenly remembers the past, and we sort of move into the past. Or the author uses the present tense form to tell about long-standing events - and an unexpected effect of shifting chronological boundaries arises. Or, as in the case of Taras Bulba, the writer places the heroes acting simultaneously, as if in different historical eras.

The action of Gogol's story seems to be attributed to the time of the Union of Brest in 1596, when a religious union between the Orthodox and Catholics was forcibly concluded on the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian kingdom of the Commonwealth, in which the Orthodox retained the language and "external" rites of their worship, but passed into submission to the pope Roman and were required to profess all the basic provisions (dogmas) of the Catholic Church. However, if you carefully read it, you will notice that the plot covers the events of Ukrainian history of the 15th, 16th and even the middle of the 17th centuries. The narrator seems to be trying to once again remind the reader that everything energetic, everything strong and impressive is already in the past, and now Mirgorod boredom has settled in the vastness of the Uk-Rayna, as well as in the vastness of the whole world. Therefore, when exactly the events took place is not so important. The main thing is that for a very long time.

No wonder in the story, which is stylized as heroic epic about the legendary times of the Little Russian "chivalry", different stages of human history are contrasted. The Cossacks, living according to the laws of the epic, do not yet know statehood, it is strong in its disorder, wild freemen. And the Polish nobility, which had already united into a state “where there are kings, princes and everything that is best in noble chivalry,” forgot what true brotherhood is.

Taras Bulba is a real epic hero. He, from the point of view of the narrator, is always right and in everything. Even when he acts like an ordinary robber: in the scene of a Jewish pogrom or beating babies, committing violence against women and the elderly. The narrator wants to become like a folk storyteller, majestic and objective. Therefore, he portrays even the unseemly actions of Taras Bulba as epic deeds, consecrated by the power of the hero and not subject to ethical assessment. Moreover, in the episodes in which Taras participates, the narrator deliberately dissolves his point of view in the point of view of the title character. This is fully consistent with the idea - to portray the ideal, self-sufficient hero of Slavic antiquity, when other customs reigned, other ideas about good and evil, and when the world has not yet been mastered by vulgar everyday life, which, like swamp duckweed, is covered with current life.

But the time in which the immaculately correct Cossack Taras Bulba fell to live is no longer completely epic. Many Cossacks, unlike Taras, his worthy heir Ostap and loyal associates, like Dmitro Tovkach, succumbed to the pernicious Polish influence, calmed down, reconciled with evil, “got mad”, got used to luxury and bliss. The Cossacks not only conclude a peace treaty with the Turks, but also swear by their faith that they will be faithful to the treaty with the infidels! Later, once again returning to the Sich after being seriously wounded, Taras does not recognize his "spiritual fatherland" at all. Old comrades will die, only hints will remain of the glorious past. The next "holy war" against the Catholics, which he will raise after the execution of Ostap in Warsaw, will be as much revenge for his son as a desperate attempt to save the partnership from decay, to return the "abusive meaning" of the Zaporozhye existence.

Ho Bulba, true bearer Cossack tradition, does not want to put up with this: life without war, without heroism, without glory and robbery is meaningless: “So what do we live on, what the hell do we live on, explain it to me!” And at the first opportunity, he raises the Cossacks on a campaign in the Polish southwest to fight against the union.

For Taras, this is not just a war. This is a kind of bloody confession of faith in the Holy Fatherland, in fellowship, to which he relates as a believer relates to the Creed. No wonder the Cossacks in the very literally words join the mystical "fellowship" of wine and bread during their endless feasts. In the scene before the Battle of Dubnov, Taras rolls out a barrel of old wine and “communes” the Cossacks with it, who will have a glorious death, leading straight to eternal life: “Sit down, Kukubenko, at my right hand! Christ will tell him. - You did not betray the partnership ... "

At the same time, Orthodoxy itself for Taras Bulba (as, indeed, for all the Cossacks in the image of Gogol) is not so much a church teaching as a kind of religious password: “Hello! What, do you believe in Christ? - “I believe!” ... “Well, cross yourself!” ... "Well, well ... go to the one you know the smoke."

In a merciless campaign against the "distrust" the sons of Taras are maturing. But here Taras is destined to find out that his youngest son, overly sensitive Andriy, crushed by the charms of the beautiful polka, goes over to the side of the enemy. If up to this point Taras's goal was revenge for the outraged faith, then from now on he is an avenger for treason, he is a formidable judge to his son. No one, nothing will force him to leave the walls of the besieged fortress until retribution is done. And it is being completed. Andriy is ambushed, and the sternly just father, having commanded his son to get off his horse, executes him: “I gave birth to you, I will kill you!”

Ho, let's re-read completely different scenes related to the image of Andriy. It would seem that he is in no way inferior to Ostap: powerful, a fathom tall, brave, good-looking, infinitely brave in battle, lucky. However, a slight shadow constantly falls on his image. In the very first scene of the story - the scene of the return - he too easily lets Taras ridicule himself. (While Ostap, the “correct” son, goes fist-to-hand with his father.) In addition, Andriy hugs his mother too warmly. In the stylized epic world of Taras Bulba, a real Cossack should put his friend higher than a “woman”, and his family feelings should be much weaker than a sense of brotherhood, camaraderie.

Andriy is too human, too refined, too sincere to be a good Cossack and a real epic hero. During the very first - Kyiv yet - meeting with a beautiful Polish woman, a beauty, white as snow and piercingly black-eyed, he allows her to make fun of herself. The Polka puts an earring on the lip of the uninvited guest, puts on a muslin chemise, that is, she dresses him as a woman. This is not just a game, not just a mockery of a capricious Polish beauty over a Ukrainian lad who crept into her room through the chimney. (Which in itself is indicative and casts a dubious demonic shadow on the hero.) But this is also a kind of ritual of dressing a man into a woman. Anyone who agreed to play such a game, who betrayed his “male” Cossack nature, is doomed sooner or later to betray faith, fatherland, comradeship in the militarized world of Gogol's story.

And the next step away from the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks (and therefore, away from the epic in the direction of a love story) the hero-shifter takes very soon. A few days after the date, he accidentally sees his beloved in the church. That is, in the midst of religious hostility between the Orthodox and Catholics, on the eve of the union, because of which the Sich will soon rise to war against Poland, Andriy enters the Catholic church. Therefore, beauty for him is already higher than truth and more precious than faith.

It is not surprising, therefore, that in the end he falls out of the great Cossack unity, camaraderie. Having learned from the emaciated servant of the Polish beauty that everything in the besieged city has been eaten, up to mice, Andriy immediately responds to the plea of ​​his beloved for help. But the daughter of the enemy cannot, should not be of interest to a real Cossack even as a concubine. Pulling a bag of bread out from under Ostap's head, Andriy goes to the enemy side.

This transition is described by the author as a transition from the world of life to the otherworldly realm of death. Just as Andriy once entered the polka's room through an "unclean", demonic chimney, so now he descends underground - into a secret tunnel, a kind of hell. The first time it happened at night, during the power of darkness, and now Andriy is sneaking to the underground passage in the false light of the moon. The dungeon itself, within the walls of which the coffins of Catholic monks stand, is compared with the Kyiv caves, where the righteous monks performed their deed of prayer. Only if the path through the Kyiv caves symbolizes the road through death to eternal life, then this dungeon leads from life to death. The Madonna depicted on the Catholic icon is seductively similar to Andriy's beloved. Are such subtle experiences, such details, such plot twists possible in a traditional epic? Of course no; the narrator chooses a completely different genre for the story about Andria, as we have already said, this genre is a novel.

In Dubno, too, everything is painted in dead tones. Ho Andriy does not seem to notice this. Amid decay, the beauty of the polka, her wonderful, “irresistibly victorious pallor”, her pearly tears (“why did ferocious fate enchant the heart to the enemy?”) Seems especially bright, especially mysterious, especially attracting. There is something deadly in this beauty: it is not for nothing that the narrator finally compares her to a beautiful statue. That is, with a statue devoid of life.

But the narrator - no matter how close his position is to Taras's epic-solid position - himself falls under the spell of the polka. Condemning Andrii ideologically, he describes in such detail and so expressively the sensual perfection of the beauty that, imperceptibly for himself, he turns from an epic storyteller into a novelist for a while.

To finally verify this, let's compare the scene of the death of Andriy, who rushes towards death like a real novel hero - in fluttering white and gold clothes, with the name of his beloved on his lips, and the episode of Ostap's execution.

The younger brother goes to the enemy voluntarily - the older one is captured. The younger one, at the moment of death, invokes an alien, feminine name, trembling with horror; the elder silently endures terrible torment and mourns only that none of his relatives, his own, are around. He turns his dying cry to his father (not knowing that he is standing in the square): “Father! where are you? Do you hear? This cry echoes the words of the cross of Christ: “My God! My God! why did you leave me? (Gospel of Matthew, chapter 27, verse 46) and “Father! into your hands I commend my spirit!” (Gospel of Luke, chapter 23, verse 46). The fact that Ostap is about to break bones at that very moment should also evoke the gospel episode in the reader’s memory: “... soldiers came, and the legs of the first were broken, and of the other, who was crucified with Him. Ho, having come to Jesus, as they saw Him already dead, they did not break His legs” (Gospel of John, 19, 32-33).

Taras himself remains true to the same epic beauty of courage, and hence camaraderie. His path to death runs through the all-cleansing fiery element (he must burn at the stake). And it is not for nothing that this death gives him the last joy: from his “frontal” elevation on the top of the cliff, from the height of his “Olympic Golgotha”, Taras sees how the Cossack brothers are escaping from the Polish pursuit (and even manages to shout to warn them of the danger). And most importantly, he witnesses the death of the brother of the hated Polish woman, who seduced Andriy with her fatal beauty.

This was the end of the first edition of the story. In the second edition (1842), Gogol put an epic monologue into the mouth of Taras Bulba: “- Farewell, comrades! - he shouted to them [the Cossacks] from above. - Remember me... What the hell, damn Poles! ...Wait, the time will come, the time will come, you will know what the Orthodox faith is! Even now peoples far and near are sensing: their tsar is rising from the Russian land, and there will be no power in the world that would not submit to him! .. "

The last words of the Cossacks who died in the battle for Dubno were a glorification of the Fatherland and the Orthodox faith. The last word Andria was about a Polish lady. Ostap's last cry was addressed to his father. The last word of Taras Bulba turns into a prophetic praise of Russian power, which nothing can overcome, into a prophecy about the coming rise of the Russian land. The Sich does not perish, but retreats into the mythological depths of history in order to give way to a new, higher manifestation of the Slavs - the Russian kingdom.

These prophetic and seemingly optimistic words were not a tribute to the ideology of the “official nationality” of the era of Nicholas I, that is, the concept on which the entire domestic policy of Russia in the 1830s was oriented and the essence of which was expressed by the formula “Orthodoxy - Autocracy - Nationality”. They had to connect the particular theme of the story with the general context of Mirgorod. And in this context, the final "imperial" prophecy of the romantic hero sounds hysterical and almost hopeless than the finale of the first edition sounded. Everything came true: the Russian kingdom rose, but in the end it suffered the same fate that once fell to the lot of the Sich. It lost its greatness, drowned in the Mirgorod puddle, which is mockingly described in the preface to "The Tale of how Ivan Ivanovich and Ivan Nikiforovich quarreled."

And the story itself about two Mirgorod landowners, Ivan Ivanovich Pererepenko and Ivan Nikiforovich Dovgochkhun, almost indistinguishable from each other, turns into a tragicomic epilogue of the sublime life story and exploits of Taras Bulba. The less distinguishable the heroes of the story are, the more detailed they are compared in the introductory chapter by the ingenuous Mirgorod narrator, whose intonation and style are sharply opposed to the author's. Ivan Ivanovich has a nice bekesha with smushkas; in the heat, he lies under a canopy in one shirt; has no children, "but" his girl Gapka has them. Ivan Nikiforovich, extremely pleasant in communication, never married. Ivan Ivanovich is thin and tall; Ivan Nikiforovich is lower, "but" thicker. Senseless formulas of comparison (“Ivan Ivanovich is somewhat timid in nature. Ivan Nikiforovich, on the contrary, has trousers in<...>wide folds") parody the classic antique book of biographies of great people - Plutarch's Parallel Lives. The shredded characters themselves, in turn, parody historical heroes. And their quarrel parodies serious battles - both those fought by Taras Bulba and those fought by "our king" in the era to which the events of the story are dated. (The quarrel takes place on July 10, 1810, two years after the conclusion of the Treaty of Tilsit in 1808 and two years before the Patriotic War.) It is no coincidence that the quarrel has a purely “military” reason - a gun that Ivan Ivanovich is trying in vain to exchange for a pig and two bags oats. The bargaining ends with Ivan Ivanovich comparing Ivan Nikiforovich with a fool, Ivan Nikiforovich calling Ivan Ivanovich a gander, and the characters, like the heroes of an ancient tragedy, freeze in a silent scene, so that after it they start a battle not for life, but for death - for the death of the soul.

The ordinary life of Mirgorod is so motionless and empty, so plotless that Ivan Ivanovich, before his quarrel with Ivan Nikiforovich, even compiled a “chronicle” of the melons eaten: this melon was eaten on such and such a date ... such and such participated. Now both sides of the conflict, and the townsfolk, and especially the city authorities feel themselves to be participants in a truly historical events. Everything - any detail, even an insignificant story about Ivan Ivanovich's brown pig, who stole Ivan Nikiforovich's court petition - grows into an epicly extensive episode about the visit of the lame mayor to Ivan Ivanovich.

Ultimately, everything in the story points to the root cause of the terrible reduction of the Mirgorod people: they have lost the religious meaning of life. Arriving in Mirgorod after twelve years of absence, the author (who does not coincide with the narrator) sees autumn mud and boredom around him (in church language this word is a synonym for sinful despondency). The aged heroes whom the author meets in the church “harmonize” with the appearance of the city and who think not about prayer, not about life, but only about the success of their lawsuits.

Romanticism and naturalism in the artistic world of Gogol. "Petersburg Tales". In full accordance with the new sense of life, Gogol changes his style. In those stories of "Mirgorod", which were built on modern material, he followed the principle: "The more ordinary the subject, the higher the poet needs to be in order to extract the extraordinary from it and so that this extraordinary is, by the way, perfect truth." And in stories from the legendary past, he continued to adhere to the "sweeping", upbeat, fantastic style. And the more impressive, powerful this past seemed, the more petty, insignificant modern life looked.

Let's try to express this idea differently, in the language of literary criticism. In a slightly more complex language, but more precise.

“Evenings on a Farm...” was created according to the laws of romantic prose. According to the laws that many Russian prose writers of the 1930s followed. For example, a literary comrade of Gogol, the same admirer of Hoffmann, German and French romantics, Vladimir Fyodorovich Odoevsky.

The heroes of his philosophical short stories Beethoven's Last Quartet (1831), The Improviser (1833) were poets, artists, musicians who received their great gift in exchange for worldly peace. Any mistake on this path, any manifestation of distrust in the mysterious, unpredictable nature of creativity turns into a tragedy.

On the contrary, the heroines of Odoevsky's secular stories "Princess Mimi", "Princess Zizi" (both 1834) are too ordinary, their souls belong without a trace to a dead, inhuman light. Ho and here the story trails lead the characters to disaster. Princess Mimi spreads a false rumor about a love affair between the Baroness Dauertal and Granitsky - "a fine stately young man." Gossip sets in motion an inexorable mechanism of mutual destruction; the result is two deaths, broken destinies.

Finally, in fantasy stories Odoevsky's "La Sylphide" (1837), "Salamander" (1841), the characters come into contact with another, invisible life, with the realm of natural spirits. And this often ends badly for them: the "one-dimensional" world either expels the "spirit seers" from its limits, or subjugates them to itself, to its "worldly views".

It was in this romantic vein that the early Gogol developed. Only in the story about Ivan Fedorovich Shponka did he begin to master the principles of a naturalistic, that is, life-like, emphatically everyday depiction of reality. In the stories from the Mirgorod cycle, everything is somewhat different. Gogol's artistic world can no longer be reduced to one thing - either romanticism or naturalism. The writer uses the narrative techniques of either romantic poetics or natural school- depending on the artistic task that he is solving at the present moment. And this means that from now on, none literary system cannot fully exhaust his plan, contain the images created by his all-encompassing genius. What used to be the main method of artistic representation becomes one of several artistic devices that the writer keeps ready, as the master keeps a set of various tools ready.

The final combination of two art systems, romantic and naturalistic, happened in the cycle, later called "Petersburg Tales", which was created by the writer in 1835-1840. Grotesque and everyday life, extreme fantasy and attention to the smallest realities - all this is equally present in the stories "The Nose", "Nevsky Prospekt", "Portrait", "Notes of a Madman", "The Overcoat". Fantasy is immersed here in the very thick of everyday life. The heroes of the cycle are the strange inhabitants of the northern capital, a bureaucratic city in which everything is a lie, everything is a deceit, everything fluctuates in the false light of flickering lanterns. Let's take a closer look at two stories from this series - "Nose" And "Overcoat" .

The plot of The Nose is improbable to the point of absurdity: Gogol had eliminated in advance the possibility of a rational explanation for the adventures that befell his hero. It would seem that the nose of Major Kovalev could well be cut off by the barber Ivan Yakovlevich, who finds this nose baked in bread. Moreover, Ivan Yakovlevich is a drunkard. But he shaves the major on Sundays and Wednesdays, but the case takes place on Friday, and for the whole quarter (that is, Thursday) his nose sat on Kovalev's face! Why, after two weeks, the nose “wishes” to suddenly return to its original place, is also unknown. And this absurdity of the situation sharply sets off the social meaning of the plot collision.

The narrator draws the reader's attention to the fact that Kovalev is not just a major. He is a collegiate assessor, that is, a civil rank of the 8th class. According to the Table of Ranks, this rank corresponded to the military rank of major, but in practice it was valued lower. Major Kovalev is a collegiate assessor of the "second freshness". By ordering to call himself a major, he deliberately exaggerates his bureaucratic status, because all his thoughts are aimed at taking a higher place in the service hierarchy. He is, in essence, not a person, but a bureaucratic function, a part that has supplanted the whole. And the nose of Major Kovalev, who arbitrarily left his face to become a state councilor, only grotesquely continues the life path of its owner. A part of the body that has become whole symbolizes the bureaucratic world order, in which a person, before becoming someone, loses face.

But the narrow social meaning of the story is opened up into an immense religious and universal context. Let's pay attention to the "little things" that sometimes play a decisive role in a work of art. On what date does Kovalev discover that his nose is missing? March 25. But this is the day of the Annunciation, one of the main (twelfth) Orthodox holidays. Where does the barber Ivan Yakovlevich live? On Voznesensky avenue. On which bridge does Major Kovalev meet the orange seller? On the Resurrection. Meanwhile, Resurrection (Easter) and Ascension are also the twelfth holidays. But the actual religious meaning of these holidays in the world depicted by Gogol is lost. Despite the Annunciation, in one of the main cathedrals of the capital, where Major Kovalev follows his nose, there are few people; the church, too, has become one of the bureaucratic fictions, a presence (or rather "absent") place. Only the disappearance of the nose is capable of crushing the heart of a formal Christian, which, like the majority, Major Kovalev is depicted.

The protagonist of another story of the St. Petersburg cycle, Akaky Akakievich Bashmachkin, also has a clear social “registration”. He is "the eternal titular adviser". That is, a state official of the 9th class, who does not have the right to acquire personal nobility (if he was not born a nobleman); in military service, this rank corresponds to the rank of captain. "A little man with a bald spot on his forehead", a little over fifty years old, serves as a copyist of papers "in one department".

And yet this is a completely different type, a different image. Kovalev himself strives for bureaucratic impersonality, he himself reduces his life to a set of service characteristics. Akaky Akakievich did not lose face for the simple reason that he had practically nothing to lose. He is impersonal from birth, he is a victim of social circumstances. His name, Akaki, in Greek means "gentle". However, the etymological meaning of the name is completely hidden behind its "indecent" sound, meaningless to them. Just as “indecent” are the names that supposedly came across in the holy calendar to mother Akaky Akakievich before his baptism (Mokiy, Sossy, Khozdazat, Trifilly, Dula, Varakhisy, Pavsikaky). Gogol rhymes the "unworthy" sound of names with the insignificance of the hero. His surname is also meaningless, which, as the narrator ironically remarks, came from a shoe, although all the ancestors of Akaky Akakievich and even his brother-in-law (despite the fact that the hero is not married) wore boots.

Akaky Akakievich is doomed to life in an impersonal society, so the whole story about him is based on formulas like “one day”, “one official”, “one significant person”. In this society, the hierarchy of values ​​has been lost, so the speech of the narrator, who almost does not coincide with the author, is syntactically illogical, overloaded with “superfluous” and similar words: “His name was: Akaky Akakievich. It may seem to the reader a little strange and sought-after, but we can assure you that no one was looking for him, and that such circumstances happened by themselves that it was impossible to give another name, and this is exactly how it happened.

However, the tongue-tied narrator cannot be compared with the hero's tongue-tied tongue: Akaky Akakievich speaks practically with prepositions and adverbs. So he belongs to a different literary and social type than Major Kovalev - the type of "little man" that occupied Russian writers of the 1830s and 1840s. (Remember, for example, Samson Vyrin from Belkin's Tales or poor Yevgeny from Pushkin's The Bronze Horseman.) their contemporaries, impoverished, seem to fall out of the historical process, become defenseless before fate.

The fate of the "little man" is hopeless. He cannot, does not have the strength to rise above the circumstances of life. And only after death, from a social victim, Akaki Akakievich turns into a mystical avenger. In the dead silence of the Petersburg night, he rips off the overcoats from officials, not recognizing the bureaucratic difference in ranks and acting both behind the Kalinkin bridge (in the poor part of the capital) and in the rich part of the city.

But it is not for nothing that in the story about the “posthumous existence” of the “little man” there are both horror and comedy. The author sees no real way out of the impasse. After all, social insignificance inexorably leads to the insignificance of the individual himself. Akaky Akakiyevich had no predilections and aspirations, except for a passion for senseless rewriting of departmental papers, except for a love of dead letters. No family, no rest, no fun. Its only positive quality is determined by a negative concept: Akaky Akakievich, in full agreement with the etymology of his name, is harmless. He does not respond to the constant ridicule of fellow officials, only occasionally begging them in the style of Poprishchin, the hero of the Notes of a Madman: “Leave me, why are you offending me?”

Of course, the gentleness of Akaky Akakievich has a certain, albeit unrevealed, unrealized spiritual power. It is not for nothing that a “side” episode was introduced into the story with “one young man”, who suddenly heard a “biblical” exclamation in the pitiful words of the offended Akaky Akakievich: “I am your brother” - and changed his life.

So social motives are suddenly intertwined with religious ones. The description of the icy winter wind that torments St. Petersburg officials and eventually kills Akaky Akakievich is connected with the theme of poverty and humiliation of the “little man”. But the St. Petersburg winter acquires in the image of Gogol the metaphysical features of the eternal, hellish, godless cold, in which the souls of people are frozen, and the soul of Akaky Akakievich above all.

The very attitude of Akaky Akakievich to the coveted overcoat is both social and religious. The dream of a new overcoat nourishes him spiritually, turns for him into an "eternal idea of ​​a future overcoat", into an ideal image of a thing. The day when Petrovich brings renewal becomes for Akaky Akakievich “the most solemn in life” (note the incorrect stylistic construction: either “the most” or “the most solemn”). Such a formula likens this day to Easter, "a celebration of celebrations." Saying goodbye to the dead hero, the author notices: before the end of his life, a bright guest flashed to him in the form of an overcoat. It was customary to call an angel a bright guest.

The life catastrophe of the hero is predetermined by the bureaucratically impersonal, indifferent social world order, at the same time by the religious emptiness of reality, which Akaki Akakievich belongs to.

Comedy "Inspector General": philosophical overtones and "insignificant hero". In 1836, Gogol made his debut as a playwright with the comedy The Inspector General.

By this time, the Russian comedy tradition was fully developed. (Remember our conversation about the fact that lyrics and drama quickly and easily adapt to changes in the literary situation.) The first viewers of The Inspector General knew by heart many moralizing comedies of the Enlightenment, from Fonvizin to Krylov. Of course, they also had in their memory the sharp poetic comedies of the playwright early XIX century Alexander Shakhovsky, in whose comedic characters the public easily guessed the features real people, prototypes. A stable set of comedic situations formed; the authors masterfully varied them, "twisting" a new cheerful plot. Comedy characters had recognizable and unchanging features, since a system of theatrical roles was developed a long time ago. For example, the role of a false groom: blinded by love, a stupid hero in vain claims the hand of the main character and does not notice that everyone is making fun of him. And the reasoning hero, like Fonvizin's Starodum, was generally exempted from comedy duty, he was not so much a participant in funny adventures as a mocking judge, a kind of representative of the author's (and the audience's) interests on the theater stage ...

So it was much easier for Gogol to make his debut in the genre of comedy than in the genre of a story. And at the same time much more difficult. Not without reason, after a more than successful premiere, Gogol could not recover for a long time. He was literally shocked by the general misunderstanding of the essence of comedy, he believed that the audience, like the heroes of The Inspector General, did not know what they were laughing at. What was the matter? Habit is second nature, not only in life, but also in art; it is difficult to make the viewer cry where he used to laugh, or think about what he used to perceive thoughtlessly. Gogol had to overcome the stereotype of the viewer's perception. The actors (especially the performers of the role of Khlestakov) did not understand Gogol's intention, they introduced a vaudeville principle into the comedy. Trying to explain to the public what the essence of his creation is, Gogol writes, in addition to The Inspector General, the play Theatrical Departure after the Presentation of a New Comedy (1836), then returns to this topic for ten years, creates several articles. The most important of them is "Forewarning for those who would like to play properly" The Government Inspector "(1846).

If even experienced actors failed to comprehend the author's intention, what was to be expected from the main part of the audience? Few people thought why Gogol closed the action of the comedy in the narrow confines of the county town, from which "if you ride for three years, you won't reach any state." But such a "middle" city was supposed to serve as a symbol of provincial Russia in general. Moreover, later in the dramaturgical “Decoupling of the Inspector General” (1846), Gogol gave an even broader, even more allegorical interpretation of his comedy. The city is a metaphor for the human soul, the characters personify the passions that overcome the human heart, Khlestakov portrays a windy secular conscience, and the “real” auditor, who appears in the finale, is the court of conscience, waiting for a person behind a coffin. This means that everything that happens in this "prefabricated city" (such is Gogol's formula) applies both to Russia, mired in bribery and extortion, and to humanity as a whole.

Ho isn't it strange that in the center symbolic plot"Inspector" is worth a completely insignificant, worthless hero? Khlestakov is not a bright adventurer, not a clever swindler who wants to deceive thieving officials, but a stupid fanfaron. He reacts to what is happening, as a rule, out of place. It is not his fault (and certainly not his merit) that everyone around wants to be deceived and try to find a deep hidden meaning in his rash remarks.

For Gogol, there was not the slightest contradiction in all this. The funnier the situations that Khlestakov gets into, the sadder the author's "bright" laughter through invisible, unknown to the world tears, which Gogol considered the only positive face of comedy. It’s funny when Khlestakov, after a “fat-bellied bottle” with provincial Madeira, from replica to replica, raises himself higher and higher up the hierarchical ladder: they wanted to make him a collegiate assessor, here “once” the soldiers mistook him for the commander in chief, and now to him couriers are rushing, “thirty-five thousand one couriers” with a request to take over the management of the department ... “I am everywhere, everywhere ... Tomorrow they will make me into a field march ...” But what seems ridiculous, at the same time infinitely tragic. The lies and boasting of Khlestakov do not resemble the empty chatter of the fanfaron Repetilov from the comedy Woe from Wit, or the carelessly excited lies of Nozdryov from Dead Souls, or the fantasies of some vaudeville naughty. By cheating, he overcomes the limitations of his social life, becomes a significant personality, destroys social barriers that he will never be able to overcome in real life.

In that phantasmagoric world that is created in Khlestakov's false imagination, an insignificant official is promoted to field marshal, an impersonal copyist becomes a famous writer. Khlestakov seemed to jump out of his social ranks and rush up the social ladder. If it weren’t for the censorship “limiters”, he would never stop at the field marshalship and would certainly imagine himself a sovereign, as another Gogol official, Poprishchin, does (Notes of a Madman). Poprishchina frees his madness from social constraint, Khlestakov - his lies. At some point, he looks around from this unthinkable height at his real self and suddenly speaks with boundless contempt about his current situation: “... and there is already an official for writing, a kind of rat, with only a pen - tr, tr ... went to write ".

Meanwhile, many heroes of The Inspector General want to change their class-bureaucratic status, to rise above petty fate. So, Bobchinsky has one and only “lowest request” to Khlestakov: “... when you go to Petersburg, tell all the different nobles there: senators and admirals ... if the sovereign has to, then tell the sovereign that, they say Your Imperial Majesty, Pyotr Ivanovich Bobchinsky lives in such and such a city. Thus, he also, in essence, wants to "elevate" himself to the highest officials of the empire. But since he is not endowed with a bold Khlestakov's imagination, he timidly begs to "transfer" at least one of his own names through class barriers and consecrate his insignificant sound with the sovereign's "divine" ear.

With the help of Khlestakov and the Governor, he hopes to change his life. After the departure of the imaginary auditor, he seems to continue to play the "Khlestakov" role - the role of a liar and a dreamer. Reflecting on the benefits of kinship with an "important person", he mentally promotes himself to the generals and instantly gets used to new look("Ah, damn it, it's nice to be a general!"). Khlestakov, imagining himself the head of a department, is ready to despise his current fellow scribe, a paper official. And the Governor, imagining himself a general, immediately begins to despise the governor: “The cavalry will be hung over your shoulder. ... you go somewhere - courier and adjutants will jump forward everywhere: “Horses!” ... You dine at the governor's, and there - stop, mayor! Heh, heh, heh! (Fills and dies with laughter.) That's what, canal, it's tempting! An unexpected discovery: Khlestakov is "not an auditor at all", offends the Gorodnichy to the depths of his soul. He is really “killed, killed, completely killed”, “stabbed to death”. The mayor is thrown off the top of the social ladder, which he has already mentally climbed. And, having experienced an incredible, humiliating shock, the Governor - for the first time in his life! - for a moment he sees, although he himself believes that he is blind: “I don’t see anything. I see some kind of pig snouts instead of faces, but nothing else. Such is the city he rules, such is he himself. And at the peak of the shame experienced, he suddenly rises to a real tragedy, exclaiming: “Who are you laughing at? laugh at yourself." And he does not realize that in this purifying laughter of a person over himself, over his passion, over his sin, the author sees a way out of the comedy's semantic conflicts.

Ho this is just one moment from the life of the Governor. And Khlestakov, largely due to his carelessness, his inspired lies, is much more daring. His stupid prowess, even though it was “in the wrong direction”, “directed at the wrong place”, allowed Gogol from the very beginning to consider Khlestakov “a type of much scattered in Russian characters”. In him, in his social behavior, the hidden desires of the officials of the county town are collected, summarized, realized; associated with it are the main socio-psychological, philosophical problems plays. This makes it the plot center of comedy. V. G. Belinsky, who called the main character Gorodnichiy, and considered the subject of the play a satirical exposure of the bureaucracy, later recognized Gogol's arguments.

Foreign travel. On the way to Dead Souls. The comedy is very funny. And at the same time very sad. After all, vice triumphs without anyone's visible efforts, by itself. Simply because he completely captured the souls of people. And the famous denouement of the "Inspector General", when the participants in the events learn about the arrival of the "real" auditor and freeze in a silent scene, does not at all indicate that the vice is punished. Because - who knows how the visiting auditor will behave? On the other hand, this silent scene generally translated the meaning of the comedy into another plane - the religious one. She reminded us of the coming Last Judgment, when our true conscience wakes up in each of us, appears to the soul, like some kind of heavenly auditor, and exposes the deeds of a false, lulled, lulled conscience.

Once again, Gogol's creative upsurge was followed by a crisis. And again, having decided that no one understood his comedy and that the great idea fell victim to universal vulgarity, he suddenly went abroad, to Germany. Then he moved to Switzerland and here he continued his interrupted work on a new work, which was supposed to reflect "all Rus', albeit from one side." This work was destined to become Gogol's pinnacle creation, his literary triumph and at the same time his most bitter defeat.

Not just a novel was conceived, but (according to Gogol's definition) a "small epic" from modern life, but in the spirit of the ancient Greek epic of Homer and the medieval epic poem by Dante "The Divine Comedy". That is why Gogol gave his new prose creation, which he called "Dead Souls", the subtitle "Poem". This genre designation indicated that the pathos lyrical beginning would permeate the entire space of the epic work and intensify from chapter to chapter, from book to book. It was from book to book, because the subtitle referred to the idea as a whole, and the essay was conceived in three plot-independent parts.

Just as the hero of The Divine Comedy climbs the spiritual ladder from hell to purgatory, and from purgatory to heaven, just as the heroes of Balzac's The Human Comedy move unstoppably through the circles of social hell, so the heroes of Dead Souls had to get out of the darkness of the fall step by step. purifying and saving their souls. The first volume of Gogol's poem corresponded to Dante's hell. The author (and the reader along with him) seemed to take the characters by surprise, showing their vices with laughter. And only from time to time his lyrical voice soared upwards, under the dome of the majestic novel vault, sounded solemnly and at the same time sincerely. In the second volume, the author intended to talk about the purification of heroes through suffering and repentance. And in the third - to give them a plot chance to show their best qualities, to become role models. For Gogol, who believed in his special spiritual vocation, such an ending was fundamentally important. He hoped to teach the whole of Russia a lesson, to show the way to salvation. Moreover, after the death of Pushkin in 1837, Gogol interpreted his work on "Dead Souls" as a "sacred testament" of the great poet, as his last will, which must be fulfilled.

Gogol lived at that time in Paris; later, after long trips around Europe, he moved to Rome. The Eternal City, which marked the beginning of Christian civilization, made an indelible impression on the Russian writer. He, yearning in St. Petersburg, in "northern Rome", for the southern sun, warmth, energy, experienced in Rome an upsurge of mental and physical strength. From here, as from a beautiful far away, he returned in thought and heart to Russia. And the image of the beloved Fatherland was freed from everything random, petty, overly detailed, it grew to a worldwide scale. This matched exactly artistic principles Gogol and coincided with his novel idea.

Returning briefly to Moscow (1839) and reading some chapters of the poem in the homes of his closest friends, Gogol realized that he was destined for complete success. And he hurried to Rome, where he worked so nicely. But at the end of the summer in Vienna, where he stayed on literary business, Gogol for the first time was overtaken by an attack of a serious nervous illness, which from now on would haunt him to the very grave. As if the soul could not stand those unbearable obligations to the world that the writer assumed: not just to create artistic image Russia and literary types of contemporaries. And not even just to teach society a moral lesson. Ho, having accomplished his literary feat, mystically save the Fatherland, give him a spiritual recipe for correction.

What famous work of world literature was Gogol guided by when plotting a novel in three volumes? What path did the main characters of "Dead Souls" have to go from the first volume to the third?

"Judge of the Contemporaries". "Selected places from correspondence with friends." No wonder the style of Gogol's letters changed in the early 1940s: “My work is great, my feat is saving; I am dead to everything petty." They are more like the letters of the apostles, the first disciples of Christ, than the letters of an ordinary (even if brilliantly gifted) writer. One of his friends called Gogol "a judge of his contemporaries" who speaks to his neighbors "like a man whose hand is filled with decrees that arrange their fate according to their will and against their will." A little later, this inspired and at the same time very painful state will be reflected in the main nonfiction book Gogol "Selected passages from correspondence with friends". The book, conceived in 1844-1845, consisted of fiery moral and religious sermons and teachings on a variety of issues: from embezzlement to the proper organization of family life. (Moreover, Gogol himself had no family.) She testified that the author of Dead Souls finally believed in his chosen one, became a "teacher of life."

However, by the time Selected Places... was published and caused a storm of the most contradictory responses in criticism, Gogol managed to publish the first volume of Dead Souls (1842). True, without the insert "The Tale of Captain Kopeikin", which was banned by censorship, with numerous amendments and under a different name: "The Adventures of Chichikov, or Dead Souls." Such a title lowered Gogol's intention and referred the reader to the tradition of adventurous and moralistic novel. The main theme of the poem turned out to be not the spiritual mortification of mankind, but the amusing adventures of the charming rogue Chichikov.

But the other was much worse. Gogol, who again went abroad for three years in 1842, could not cope with his overly ambitious plan, which exceeded the usual human strength, and after another bout of nervous illness and mental crisis in the summer of 1845, he burned the manuscript of the second volume.

Later, in Four Letters to Different Persons About Dead Souls (the letters were included in the book Selected Places...), he explained this "act of burning" by the fact that in the second volume "ways and roads" were not clearly indicated. to the ideal." Certainly, real reasons were deeper and more varied. Here there is a sharp weakening of health, and a deep contradiction between the "ideal" idea and the real nature of Gogol's talent, his tendency to depict dark sides life ... But the main thing - we can repeat it again and again - was the overwhelming nature of the task, which literally crushed Gogol's talent. Gogol, in the most direct and terrible sense of the word, overstrained himself.

Torture by Silence (1842-1852). The public, with the exception of the closest friends, did not notice this anguish. After all, Gogol's books continued to be published. In 1843 his Works were published in 4 volumes. Here, for the first time, the story “The Overcoat” was published, where the writer spoke with such piercing force about the fate of the “little man” that the story literally turned literary consciousness whole generation of Russian writers. The great Russian novelist Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky, who made his debut during these years, would later say that they all came from Gogol's The Overcoat. In the same collected works for the first time saw the light of the comedy "Marriage", "Gamblers", a play-afterword to the "Inspector General" "Theatrical journey ...". Ho, not everyone knew that "The Overcoat" was started back in 1836, and "Marriage" - in 1833, that is, before the "Inspector General". And new works of art after the first volume of "Dead Souls" Gogol did not create.

"Selected Places ...", as well as the "Author's Confession", begun in 1847, and published only posthumously, were written instead of the "small epic" promised to the public. In essence, the last decade of Gogol's life turned into an incessant torture by silence. How intensely and joyfully he worked in the first ten years of his writing (1831-1841), how painfully he suffered from creative non-incarnation in the second decade (1842-1852). As if life demanded that he pay an unthinkable price for the brilliant insights that visited him in the 1830s.

Continuing to wander along the roads of Europe, living either in Naples, then in Germany, then again in Naples, in 1848 Gogol makes a pilgrimage to holy places, prays in Jerusalem at the Holy Sepulcher, asks Christ to help "gather all our strength for the work of creation, we cherished..." Only then does he return to his beloved homeland. And he does not leave him until the end of his life.

Outwardly, he is active, sometimes even cheerful; met in Odessa with young writers who consider themselves his followers - Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov, Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov, Dmitry Vasilyevich Grigorovich. In December, he communicates with the novice playwright Alexander Nikolayevich Ostrovsky. Gogol is finally trying to arrange his family life and proposes to A. M. Vielgorskaya. The offer was followed by a refusal, which wounded Gogol in the very heart and once again reminded him of worldly loneliness. About the very loneliness that he sought to overcome with the help of creativity, becoming an absentee interlocutor, friend, and sometimes mentor of thousands of readers.

In 1851, he read to his friends the first six or seven chapters of the rewritten (more precisely, rewritten) second volume of Dead Souls. On January 1, 1852, he even informs one of them that the novel is over. But the latent internal dissatisfaction with the results of many years of work imperceptibly grew and was ready to break through at any moment, as water breaks through a dam during a flood. The crisis again broke out suddenly and entailed catastrophic consequences.

Having learned about the death of the sister of the poet Nikolai Mikhailovich Yazykov, his close friend and like-minded person, the shocked Gogol foresees his own imminent death. And in the face of impending death, which sums up everything that man has done on earth, he re-examines the manuscript of the second volume, is horrified and after a conversation with his confessor, Fr. Matvey Konstantinovsky again burns what was written. (Only draft versions of the first five chapters survive.)

Gogol regarded creative failure as the collapse of his entire life, he fell into a severe depression. Ten days after the burning of the manuscript of the second volume of Dead Souls, Gogol died like his own life burned in the flame of this fire ...

Thousands of people came to say goodbye to the great Russian writer. After the funeral service, performed in the university church of St. Tatyana, professors and students of Moscow University carried the coffin in their arms to the burial place. A monument was erected over the grave of the writer with words from bible book prophet Jeremiah. Ends and beginnings closed, the epitaph became an epigraph to all of Gogol's work: "I will laugh at my bitter word."