Theatrical journey At the end of the 60s of the last century in the literary and dramatic edition Central Television the heading "Encyclopedia of Laughter" began to go on the air. In search of work, I ran to them. Head of the scenario department Elena Vladimirovna Galperina,

From Gogol's article "An excerpt from a letter written by the author shortly after the first presentation of the "Inspector" to a writer" [The addressee of the letter (which took the form of an article) is Pushkin.] ... The auditor is played - and in my soul it is so vague, so strange ... I expected , I knew in advance how it would go

“...I didn’t read anything smarter in Russian.” About Gogol's play "Theatrical tour after the presentation of a new comedy"

Reread again

Yuri Vladimirovich MANN (1929) - historian of Russian literature, Chief Editor coming out now Complete collection writings and letters of N.V. Gogol; doctor philological sciences, Professor of the Russian State University for the Humanities. Regular contributor to Literature.

“... I didn’t read anything smarter in Russian”

About Gogol's play "Theatrical tour after the presentation of a new comedy"

This work, as you know, was written about another work - the comedy "The Inspector General", staged for the first time on April 19, 1836 at the Alexandrinsky Theater in St. Petersburg. Although the name of the comedy is never mentioned in The Theater Journey ..., its text reproduces with remarkable completeness and fidelity the judgments that this event gave rise to; The very atmosphere of public excitement is also conveyed, and Gogol's reaction to everything that happens is also recorded.

A play about a play

Thus, the "Theatrical Journey ..." is connected to the tradition of special works, which can be defined as "texts about texts." Sometimes this is not the whole work, but only a part of it, a fragment. So, in the story of N.A. Field "Painter" (1833), possibly known to Gogol, a dramatic scene is presented: numerous spectators at the opening day - the General, the Goldfinch, the Maecenas, the lean connoisseur, Femme savante (Scientific woman) and others - in the presence of the artist himself discuss his sincere creation, and these judgments, sometimes rather short-sighted, hurt and deeply injure him author's feeling (see: Field N. Dreams and life. M., 1988. S. 118–120).

The genealogy of "Theatrical Journey ..." as a dramatic work can be defined even more precisely - this a play about a play: his model, as has long been noted, could serve as Molière's "Critique of the Women's School" ( Veselovsky Al. Western influence in new Russian literature. Comparative-historical essays. M., 1883. S. 169), that is, "La Critique de l" Ecole des femmes "(1663), in the modern translation of the title -" Criticism of the "School of Wives". "Despite the fact that the first Russian production of the play took place only in 1842 (at the Alexandrinsky Theater in St. Petersburg), and it was published in Russian translation even later (1884), Gogol's acquaintance with her is quite likely.

The similarity of the accusations made by the interlocutors against the "School of Wives" and, accordingly, will be brought later against the "Inspector" not named in the "Theatrical Journey ..." is striking: they say, this is an insult to decency, meanness of ridicule, violation of the rules bequeathed by ancient authorities - Aristotle and Horace. On the other hand, the defense of the "School of Wives" - it is mainly conducted by Dorant and Urania - is built on the opposition of high-pitched laughter to clowning (cf. in Gogol - the opposition of laughter emanating "from the bright nature of man" to bilious or light laughter); is based on the assertion of the aesthetic equivalence of comedy and tragedy; finally, on the priority of creativity over rules: “If I am passionate,” Urania says, “I don’t ask myself<…>Aristotle's rules allow me to laugh here or not.

At the same time, against the background of the Moliere tradition, the fundamental novelty of the construction of the “Theatrical Passage” is noticeable, which, it seems, has not attracted the necessary attention.

What is a "departure"?

In connection with the production in 1831 of Griboyedov's Woe from Wit, a play well known to Gogol, one of the reviewers (N.I. Nadezhdin) noted that she was struck by "intricate news - an unprecedented scene of departure at our theater" (see: Nadezhdin N.I. Literary criticism. Aesthetics. M., 1972. S. 283). The finale of "Woe from Wit" was not ignored by another critic - P.A. Vyazemsky: “The phenomenon of passing in the hallway, this is the last action of a secular day<…>good and bold with its novelty. At the theater it is picturesque and very funny” ( Vyazemsky P.A. Aesthetics and literary criticism. M., 1984. S. 224). And now a curious episode of literary continuity emerges: Gogol applied this “news” to the theatrical action as a whole, fixing it in the very title of the work (“route”) and retaining or modifying the corresponding stage attributes: Griboedov has “front hallway, a large staircase from the second housing” and so on; Gogol - "the canopy of the theater", "stairs leading to the boxes and galleries" and so on. Both works, in the words of I.V. Kireevsky, said on a different occasion, “develop the consequences of a deed that has already been done”: in the first case, the evening at Famusov and Chatsky’s behavior on it; in the second - the premiere of the "new comedy"; at the same time, the situation of “passing away” gives this development an unprecedented drama.

Indeed, the scene of the "Critique of the School for Wives" is Urania's house in Paris, a kind of art salon where a recent performance at the Palais Royal is being discussed. The opinions expressed here are direct, lively, but they still had at least some time to settle and take shape. In “Theatrical Journey…” opinions are picked up literally on the fly, randomly, in a sharp and spontaneous clash with each other (the motive summed up in the finale, in the final monologue of the Author: “The world is like a whirlpool: opinions and rumors are always moving in it ...”) . If the theater hall theater symbolizes unity, albeit temporary and sometimes apparent, when “a whole crowd, a whole thousand people at one time reads a living useful lesson” (Gogol’s words from the article “Petersburg Stage in 1835–1836”), then “theatrical siding” already marks the end of this unity and the fragmentation of interests, opinions and feelings. Thus, he fully corresponds to Gogol's worldview in general: people are still “on the road and at the station, and not at home” (letter to A.O. Smirnova, dated January 27, NS, 1846).

Following the “Criticism of the “School of Wives””, as well as another Moliere “play about the play” - after the “Versailles Impromptu” (“L" Impromptu de Versailles ”, staged in 1663, the first Russian edition- 1881) - "Theatrical journey ..." demonstrates various judgments regarding the essence and nature of the comic, especially its modern manifestation. Many of these judgments are quite authentic, developing the theoretical content of such Gogol's works as "Petersburg Notes ..." and "Petersburg Scene ...". The resultant of these judgments is formed by the desire to “deduce the laws of action from our own society” (a phrase from “Petersburg scene…”); hence the proclamation of a common plot and the search for new options for action, built not on a love affair, but on quite practical and selfish incentives - on the “electricity” of rank, money capital, profitable marriage, on the desire to “get a profitable place” and so on. Gogol defined these incentives in consonance with his contemporary criticism of the mercantile and utilitarian mindset: the parallel between the just cited provisions and the description of the “Iron Age” in The Last Poet (published in 1835) by E.A. Baratynsky:

In the hearts of self-interest and common dream
Hour by hour urgent and useful
Clearly, shamelessly busy.

In addition, Gogol took into account the considerations expressed by V.P. Androsov as a reviewer of The Inspector General: “Depict us not an excerpt from the life of some people ... but an excerpt from those morals that more or less constitute features of the modern physiognomy of society”(Moscow observer. 1836. May. Book. 1. S. 123; our italics. - Yu.M.). However, at the same time, the theoretical orientation of Gogol's play is distinguished by the radicalism of the wording, brought to the program requirements in relation to the structure of modern comedy, for example, in relation to the “general plot” already mentioned above, which should cover all the characters, from the main ones to the third ones, and create a single comedy action.

Gogol's solution to the question of the relationship between the traditions of modern and ancient (Novo-Attic) comedy is also marked by radicalism. By that time, there was already a keen interest in Russian criticism in Aristophanes as a representative of the neo-Attic comedy, however, in The Theater Journey ... this interest took shape in a clear position: it was Aristophanes who created the model of comedy that modern comedians should follow: “At the very beginning, comedy was social, national creation. At least, this is how her father himself, Aristophanes, showed her.

Author on and off stage

The theoretical orientation of the text, and on the other hand, the deliberate inconsistency and spontaneity of various reactions and judgments arising from the situation of “passing away”, created special difficulties for the dramatic organization of the work. How to give unity to a play in which, in fact, nothing happens?

One of the techniques of this organization is the through participation of the Author, who appears on stage four times (in the beginning, in the finale and literally in a glimpse, with one or two remarks, after the first few exits). In this regard, the precedent for the "Theatrical tour ..." could serve not as "Critique of the "School of Wives"", where the author is absent, but "Versailles Impromptu", where Molière performs under his own own name. Although in “Theatrical Journey…”, according to Gogol’s attitude, the Author appears “as an ideal person” and his name does not appear, however, references and associations to the real author are inevitable, especially since the text also provides biographical details for this.

For example, speaking about the noisy success of the premiere (“The whole theater is thundering!.. Here is the glory!”), which, by the way, fully corresponds to the actual success of the premiere of The Inspector General, the Author recalls his past: “God! How my heart would beat seven or eight years ago, how everything in me would tremble!<…>Good is the fishery, which did not allow me to taste the early delights and praises. "Seven, eight" years ago, counting from the premiere of "The Government Inspector", indicate for 1828- the time of arrival of Gogol, captured ambitious plans, to Petersburg, and for 1829- the time of the appearance of "Hanz Küchelgarten", which did not allow Gogol to taste the much desired glory ... (The draft version of the play also contained another autobiographical detail - an indication of Gogol's upcoming departure abroad, which actually took place a few months after the premiere of "The Government Inspector".) and the non-participation of the Author, hiding behind the scenes, does not cancel the effect of presence and forces one to correlate everything that happens on the stage with his reaction (cf. wanted to take the place of the author…”).

The dramatic organization of the play is also facilitated by such techniques as playing with contrasts, or coincidences, or shades, and the subject of this game is precisely opinions, starting with a kind of retardation at the beginning: The author is eager to hear “talks” about his play, but now two comme il faut, two officers, a secular person, and so on, come one after another, and “not a word about comedy”; then new faces appear - a middle-aged official, “two bekeshi”, and so on, and a series of very approximate, random remarks follows (cf. the impressions of the annoyed Author: “Well, these have not yet said a little”). Then the stream of opinions breaks through, as if through a dam, and a change of views and moods occurs within the same exit (there is no division into “phenomena” in the play), when, for example, the character is “Mr. V.” - changes his point of view and repents of what he said. Within the same exit, or scene, a plot movement is also outlined, however, still associated with a movement of opinions (the story of “A Very Modestly Dressed Man” about his service in a provincial “town”, then an invitation from a statesman to take a higher place , then the rejection of this proposal - in a word, for several lines, almost a whole stage of the hero's life).

Returning to the figure of the Author of the play, one should note his unifying, dramatic function precisely in the sphere of the development of judgments, that is, in the aspect of aesthetics and the theory of the comic. There are many characters in the play who are close to the author's views and worldview: the just-mentioned “Very modestly dressed man”, “The second lover of the arts” (he owns the words about the “electricity of the rank”, about other modern stimuli of the plot, and also about Aristophanes as the creator "public" comedy), "Young lady" and others. And yet, in determining the moral direction of laughter, the Author has the prerogative of the final word, putting an end to the i. Many people spoke about the benefits, meaning, dignity of laughter, but about the fact that laughter is noble face, in later terms - a goodie, no one said. Wed replica of the “Second Lady”: “Advise the author to bring at least one an honest man. Tell him that they ask him about it, that it will be, really, good. It is to this “request” that the Author reacts in the final monologue: “... I’m sorry that no one noticed the honest face that was in my play<…>This honest, noble face was - laughter" and so on.

Another current opinion that provoked the author's protest is about the mental hardness of the comedian: “I don’t say a word about the comedian not having nobility<…>I only say that he could not ... shed a heart tear, love something strongly, with all the depths of his soul, ”says“ Second Lady ”. Wed Author's answer: “In the depths of cold laughter, hot sparks of eternal mighty love can be found<…>who often sheds sincere, deep tears, he seems to laugh more than anyone else in the world! ..

Remark share

But it turns out that remarks can also perform a connecting, unifying function, when phrases freely flow from a character’s replica or monologue into a remark or author’s designation of the character; it can be said, therefore, that the proportion of stage direction in Gogol's play increases immeasurably.

So, the phrase “it is not known what kind of person” first appears in the dialogue of two officers (“And who is the other with him?” - “I don’t know; it’s unknown what kind of person”), and then becomes the hallmark of the hero. The phrase "A very modestly dressed person" undergoes the same transformation. Sometimes the remark characterizing the character’s exit is then repeated in a truncated form when designating it (for example, instead of “Young lady of the big world ...” simply “Young lady”) - an impression is created of lively, free speech, where it is not necessary to repeat exactly the wording already found . There may be truncations when designating a character (in the beginning: “Young official of an evasive nature”, then simply “Young official”). Sometimes, however, a motley spectrum of designations and remarks unfolds, correlated with each other and fulfilling a characterological role (“A young official of an evasive nature”, “An official of a talkative nature”, “The voice of a gentleman of an encouraging nature”, “The voice of an angry official, but, apparently, an experienced one” , “The gentleman is short and unprepossessing, but of a poisonous quality”, “Master of the positive quality”, “Master of the negative quality”, “Master of the good-natured quality”, “Master of the cold-blooded quality” and so on).

The interaction of designations and remarks-formulas performs the function of additional braces that bind the text. At the same time, enriching the text and being necessarily designed for reading, they turn The Theater Journey ... into the only experience of drama for reading (Lesedrama) in Gogol's dramaturgy and make it possible to understand why Gogol did not consider the work suitable for stage embodiment. Subsequently, however, this prohibition was violated more than once ... However, the stage history of the play is a separate topic, which we will not dwell on.

“The hundred-headed monster that is called the public”

The very first critical responses set off the remarkable depth of "Theatrical Journey ...". Belinsky, who read the play back in manuscript, spoke about it very briefly at first, in a letter to V. Botkin: “An amazing thing - I didn’t read anything smarter in Russian” ( Belinsky V.G. Full coll. cit.: V 13 vol. -an aesthetician, deeply comprehending the laws of art, which he serves with such glory, as a poet and social writer. This play is, as it were, a magazine article in a poetic-dramatic form - a thing possible for Gogol alone! This play contains a deeply conscious (so! - Yu.M.) theory public comedy and satisfactory answers to all questions, or, rather, to all attacks, initiated by The Inspector General and other works of the author ”( Belinsky. Decree. ed. T. 6. S. 663). This was said in connection with the appearance of the fourth volume of "The Works of Nikolai Gogol" (St. Petersburg, 1842), where "Theatrical journey ..." first saw the light.

P.A. Pletnev: the play “contains all the treasures of drama, criticism, characterization and comedy. Everything shines with ideas of high observation, knowledge of passions and customs, bright colors and originality of considerations ... The author attracts you, he himself is carried away by a stream of new images, situations and feelings ... ”( Pletnev P.A. Writings and correspondence. SPb., 1885. T. 2. S. 373).

At the same time, another reviewer drew attention to the collective image of the audience contained in the play. Let us give an extensive quotation from this review, since it is not very well known even to specialists, but meanwhile it is one of the most striking in the literature on the "Theatrical Departure ...".

“... The most precious pearl that the “Works of Gogol” brought us is undoubtedly “Departure from the theater after the presentation of a new comedy” (so! - Yu.M.)… Many deep and beautiful truths are expressed here, every thought is warmed here with warm love for humanity, every word responds with an extraordinary mind and heart-knowledge. You read and do not believe how the author could embrace so many minds, unravel so many hearts, enter one by one into the sphere of concepts, beliefs and habits of each of the many persons that make up the so-called "public". More than a hundred people pass in front of you in the "theatrical journey". One will throw a thought, another nonsense, he will say only one word, the other will say a whole box, the third will not say anything himself, but will only tell someone else's, the fourth will only blink his eyebrows - he is angry, he praises, - he speaks nonsense, not understanding the matter, one understands the matter, but speaks nonsense; in a word, every head, every hat, overcoat, every uniform, every Armenian thinks in his own way and speaks in his own way. No doubt, it takes great talent to paint any similar portrait. hundred-headed monster, which is called the public ... ”(Literary newspaper. 1843. March 14. No. 11. P. 225) .

After presenting a new comedy

Selected works

Canopy of the theatre. On one side are visible staircases leading to lodges and galleries; in the middle is the entrance to the armchairs and the amphitheater, on the other side is the exit. A distant rumble of applause is heard.

Two comme il faut3, of dense quality, come down the stairs.

The first comme il faut. It would be good if the police did not drive my carriage far away. What is the name of this young actress, do you know?

Second comme il faut. No, but very stupid.

The first comme il faut. Yes, not bad; but still something is missing. Yes, I recommend it: a new restaurant: yesterday we were served fresh green peas (kisses fingertips) - lovely! (They both leave.)

An officer runs, another holds his hand.

Another officer. Let's stay.

First officer. No, brother, you can’t lure you to vaudeville with a roll. We know these plays that are given for a snack: lackeys instead of actors, and women are a freak on a freak. (Exits.)

Secular man, smartly dressed (coming down the stairs). The rogue tailor made me pantaloons, all the time I was afraid to sit awkwardly. For this, I intend to delay him again, and for two years I will not pay my debts. (Exits.)

Also a man of the world, thicker (he speaks with liveliness to another). Never, never, believe me, he will not sit down to play with you. Less than one and a half hundred rubles, Robert, he does not play. I know this well, because my brother-in-law, Pafnutiev, plays with him every day.

Middle-aged official (coming out with outstretched arms). It's just the devil knows what it is! .. Sort of! .. kind of! .. It doesn't look like anything. (Gone.)

Sir, somewhat careless about literature (addressing another). After all, this, however, seems to be a translation?

Another. Please, what a translation! The action takes place in Russia, our customs and ranks even.

Gentleman careless about literature. I remember, however, there was something in French, not exactly like that. (Both leave.)

One of two spectators (also going out). Now nothing can be known. Wait what the magazines say and then you'll know.

Two bekeshi (one another). Well, how are you? I would like to know your opinion about comedy.

Another bekesha (making significant movements with her lips). Yes, of course, it cannot be said that there was not something ... in its own way ... Well, of course, who is against this, that it should not happen again and ... where, so to speak ... but anyway. .. (Squeezing his lips affirmatively.) Yes, yes! (They leave.)

Two officers.

One. I've never laughed so hard before.

Another. I think it's a great comedy.

First. Well, no, let's see what the magazines say: we need to put the critics on trial ... Look, look! (Pushes him by the arm.)

Second. What?

FIRST (pointing to one of the two going up the stairs). Writer!

Second (hastily). Which?

First. This. Chsh! let's hear what they have to say.

Second. Who else is with him?

First. I don't know, I don't know what kind of person. (Both officers step aside and give them a seat.)

It is unknown what kind of person. I cannot judge as to literary merit; but I think there are witty notes. Sharp, sharp.

Writer. Excuse me, what's so witty? What a low people brought out, what a tone? The jokes are the flattest; just gross!

It is unknown what kind of person. Ah, that's another matter. I say: in regard to literary merit, I cannot judge; I only noticed that the play was funny, that it gave pleasure.

Writer. Yes, it's not funny. Excuse me, what's so funny and what's the fun? The plot is incredible. All inconsistencies; no strings, no action, no consideration whatsoever.

It is unknown what kind of person. Well, I don't say anything against it. Literally so, literaryly it is not funny; but in relation, so to speak, from the side it has ...

Writer. What is there? Damn, this doesn't even exist! Well, what is the spoken language? Who talks like that in high society? Well, tell me yourself, well, are we talking to you, that way?

It is unknown what kind of person. This is true; You have noticed this very subtly. Exactly, I thought about it myself: there is no nobility in the conversation. All faces seem as if they cannot hide their low nature - this is true.

Writer. Well, you still praise!

It is unknown what kind of person. Who is praising? I don't praise. I myself now see that the play is nonsense. But all of a sudden it's impossible to find out, I can't judge from a literary point of view. (Both leave.)

Another writer (enters, accompanied by listeners, to whom he speaks, waving his arms). Believe me, I know the business: a disgusting play, a dirty, dirty play! There is not a single true face, all are caricatures! This is not in nature, believe me, no, I know it better: I myself am a writer. They say: liveliness, observation ... but it's all nonsense, it's all friends, friends praise, all friends! I have already heard that it is almost put into the Fonvizins, and the play is simply unworthy even to be called a comedy. Farce, farce, and the most unfortunate farce. Compared to her, Kotzebue's last empty comedy is Mont Blanc in front of Pulkovo Hill. I will prove it to them all, I will prove it mathematically, like two times two. It's just that his friends and buddies praised him beyond measure, and so now he, tea, thinks of himself that he is a little bit like Shakespeare. Our friends will always praise us. Here, for example, is Pushkin. Why is all of Russia now talking about him? All friends: shouted, shouted, and then after them, the whole of Russia began to shout. (Exits with audience.)

Both officers (lean forward and take their places).

First. This is true, this is perfectly true: exactly, a farce; I have said this before, a stupid farce, supported by friends. I admit, it was even disgusting to look at many things.

Second. Why, did you say you've never laughed like that before?

First. And this is another matter again. You don't understand, you need to explain. What's in this play? Firstly, there is no plot, no action, absolutely no consideration; all improbability and, moreover, all caricatures.

Two other officers are behind.

One (other). Who is discussing this? Looks like one of yours?

Another, looking sideways into the face of the reasoner, waved his hand.

First. What, stupid?

Second. No, not that. He has a mind, but now after the release of the magazine, and the book came out late - and nothing in his head. "But, nevertheless, let's go." (They leave.)

Two art lovers.

First. I am not at all one of those who resort only to words: dirty, disgusting, bad taste and the like. It is almost a proven fact that such words for the most part come from the lips of those who themselves are of a very dubious tone, talk about drawing rooms and are allowed only in the anterooms. But it's not about them. I'm talking about the fact that in the play, for sure, there is no plot.

Second. Yes, if you take the plot in the sense in which it is usually accepted, that is, in the sense of a love affair, then it certainly does not exist. But it seems that it is time to stop relying so far on this eternal plot. It is worth taking a closer look around. Everything has changed long ago in the light. Now, the desire to get a favorable place, to shine and outshine, by all means, the other, to avenge neglect, for ridicule, ties up the drama more strongly. Do not electricity now have rank, money capital, an advantageous marriage, than love?

First. All this is good; but in this respect, all the same, I do not see the plot in the play.

Second. I will not now state whether there is a plot in the play or not. I will only say that in general they are looking for a private plot and do not want to see a common one. People are innocently accustomed to these incessant lovers, without whose marriage the play cannot end. Of course, this is the plot, but what is the plot? - a precise knot at the corner of the scarf. No, comedy must knit itself, with all its mass, into one big common knot. The tie should embrace all the faces, not just one or two, touch what excites, more or less, all the actors. Here every hero; the course and course of the play produces a shock to the whole machine: not a single wheel should remain as rusty and out of use.

First. But everyone can't be heroes; one or two must control the others.

Second. Not to rule at all, but to dominate. And in the car, some wheels move more noticeably and more strongly, they can only be called the main ones; but the play is ruled by an idea, a thought: without it there is no unity in it. And everything can tie up: the very horror, the fear of expectation, the storm of the law going far away ...

First. But it goes beyond giving comedy some more universal meaning.

Second. But isn't this its direct and real meaning? From the very beginning, comedy was social, folk creation. At least that is how her father himself, Aristophanes, showed her. After that, she entered the narrow gorge of a private tie, introduced a love move, the same indispensable tie. But how weak is this plot in the best comedians! how insignificant are these theatrical lovers with their cardboard love!

Third (coming up and hitting him lightly on the shoulder). You are wrong: love, like other feelings, can also enter into a comedy.

Second. I'm not saying she can't get in. But only love, and all other feelings, more sublime, will only make a high impression when they are developed in all depth. Having taken care of them, one must inevitably sacrifice everything else. Everything that constitutes precisely the side of comedy will then already turn pale, and the significance of social comedy will certainly disappear.

Third. So, the subject of comedy must necessarily be low? Comedy will come out already low kind.

Second. For someone who will look at the words, and not delve into the meaning, this is so. But can't positive and negative serve the same purpose? Can't comedy and tragedy express the same lofty thought? Doesn't everything, down to the slightest bend of the soul of a vile and dishonest person, already draws the image of an honest person? Doesn't all this accumulation of baseness, deviations from laws and justice already make it clear what law, duty and justice require of us? In the hands of a skillful physician, both cold and hot water cure the same diseases with equal success: in the hands of talent, everything can serve as an instrument for beauty, if only it is guided by the lofty thought to serve the beauty.

Fourth (approaching). What can serve the beautiful and what do you talk about?

First. We got into an argument about comedy. We're all talking about comedy in general, and no one has said anything about new comedy yet. What do you say?

Fourth. And here's what I'll say: talent is visible, observation of life, a lot of funny, true, taken from nature; but in general there is something missing in the whole play. Somehow you don't see the connection or the denouement. It is strange that our comedians cannot do without the government. Without him, you will not unleash a single comedy.

Third. This is true. And yet, on the other hand, it is very natural. We all belong to the government, we all almost serve; the interests of all of us are more or less connected with the government. Therefore, it is not surprising that this is reflected in the creations of our writers.

Fourth. So. Well, let this connection be heard; but the funny thing is that the play can never end without a government. It will certainly appear, like the inevitable fate in the tragedies of the ancients.

Second. Well, you see: therefore, this is already something involuntary with our comedians. Therefore, this already constitutes some kind of distinctive character of our comedy. There is some kind of secret faith in the government in our chest. Well? there is nothing wrong here: God grant that the government always and everywhere hears its calling - to be the representative of providence on earth, and that we believe in it, as the ancients believed in fate that overtook crimes.

Fifth. Hello gentlemen! I only hear the word "government". Comedy aroused shouts and talk...

Second. Let's talk better about these rumors and shouts at my place than here, in the theatrical vestibule. (They leave.)

Several respectable and decently dressed people appear one after another.

N 1. So; so, I see: this is true, we have it and it happens in other places and worse; but for what purpose, why bring it out? - that's the question! Why these performances? What is the use of them? - that's what let me! What do I need to know that there are rogues in such and such a place? I just... I don't understand the need for such representations. (Exits.)

N 2. No, this "is not a mockery of vices; this is a disgusting mockery of Russia - that's what. It means to expose the government itself in a bad way, because to expose bad officials and abuses that occur in different classes means to expose the government itself. Simply even such representations should not be allowed.(Exit.)

Enter Mr. A. and Mr. B., people of not unimportant rank.

Mr. A. I'm talking about this; on the contrary, we need to show abuses; we need to see our misdeeds; and I do not in the least share the opinions of many over-excited patriots; but only it seems to me that there is not too much something sad here ...

Mr. B. I would very much like you to hear the remark of a very modestly dressed man who was sitting next to me in armchairs ... Ah, there he is!

Mr. A. Who?

Mr. B. It is this very modestly dressed man. (Turning to him.) You and I have not finished our conversation, the beginning of which was so interesting to me.

A very modestly dressed man. And I, I confess, am very glad to continue it. Only now I have heard rumors, namely: that this is all untrue, that this is a mockery of the government, of our customs, and that this should not be imagined at all. This made me mentally recall and embrace the whole play, and I confess that the expression of the comedy now seemed to me even more remarkable. In it, it seems to me, hypocrisy is most strongly and deeply affected by laughter, a decent mask, under which baseness and meanness appear, a rogue making a face of a well-meaning person. I confess that I felt joy seeing how ridiculous the well-intentioned words in the mouth of a rogue, and how hilariously ridiculous everything, from armchairs to the district, became the mask he put on. And after that, there are people who say that it is not necessary to bring this on stage! I heard one remark made, it seemed to me, by the way, by a rather decent person: "And what will the people say when they see that we have such abuses?"

Mr. A. I confess, you will excuse me, but the question also involuntarily presented itself to me: what will our people say, looking at all this?

A very modestly dressed man. What will the people say? (He takes a step back, two in Armenians pass.)

Blue Armenian to gray. Probably, the governors were nimble, but everyone turned pale when the royal reprisal came! (Both exit.)

A very modestly dressed man. That's what the people will say, you hear?

Mr. A. What?

A very modestly dressed man. He will say: "Probably, the governors were nimble, but everyone turned pale when the royal reprisal came!" Do you hear how true to natural intuition and feeling a person is? How true is the simplest eye, if it is not clouded by theories and thoughts plucked from books, but draws them from the very nature of man! Isn't it obviously clear that after such a presentation the people will gain more faith in the government? Yes, he needs such ideas. Let him separate the government from the bad executors of the government. Let him see that abuses come not from the government, but from those who do not understand the demands of the government, from those who do not want to answer to the government. Let him see that the government is noble, that its unsleeping eye watches over all equally, that sooner or later it will overtake those who have betrayed the law, honor and holy duty of a person, that those with an unclean conscience will turn pale before it. Yes, he must see these ideas; believe that even if he happens to experience pressure and injustice on himself, he will come out comforted after such a performance with a firm faith in the unsleeping higher law. I also like the remark: "The people will get a bad opinion about their bosses." That is, they imagine that the people will see their leaders only here, for the first time, in the theater; that if at home some rogue elder squeezes him in his paw, then he will not see it in any way, but when he goes to the theater, then he will see it. Indeed, they consider our people to be more stupid than a log, stupid to such an extent that it is as if they are not able to distinguish which pie is with meat, and which with porridge. No, now, it seems to me, it’s even good that an honest person has not been brought on stage. A proud man: put out one good side to him with many bad sides, he will already proudly leave the theater. No, it’s good that only exceptions and vices are exposed, which now prick their eyes to the point that they don’t want to be their compatriots, they are ashamed to even admit that this can be.

Mr. A. But do we really have exactly such people?

A very modestly dressed man. Let me tell you this: I don't know why I get sad every time I hear a question like this. I can speak frankly with you: in the features of your faces I see something that disposes me to frankness. A person first of all makes a request: "Do such people really exist?" But when has a man been seen to ask such a question: "Am I myself completely free from such vices?" Never ever! Yes, that's what - I'll talk to you frankly - I have kind heart, there is a lot of love in my chest, but if you knew what mental efforts and shocks I needed in order not to fall into many vicious inclinations, which you involuntarily fall into while living with people! And how can I say now that I don’t have those same inclinations at this very moment that everyone just laughed at ten minutes ago and at which I myself laughed?

Mr. A. (after some silence). I confess that you will ponder over your words. And when I remember, I will imagine how proud our European upbringing has made us, in general, how it has hidden us from ourselves, how haughtily and with what contempt we look at those who have not received an external polish like us, how each of us puts himself a little not saints, but always speaks of bad things in the third person - then, I confess, my soul involuntarily becomes sad ... But forgive my indiscretion - you, however, are to blame for it yourself - let me know: with whom do I have the pleasure of talking?

A very modestly dressed man. And I am nothing more, nothing less than one of those officials whose positions were taken by the faces of the comedy, and the third day I just arrived from my town.

Mr. B. I couldn't think of that. And don't you think after that it's a shame to live and serve with such people?

A very modestly dressed man. It's a shame? And here's what I'll tell you about this: I confess, I often had to lose my patience. In our town, not all officials are from an honest dozen; often you have to climb a wall to do some good deed. Several times already I wanted to leave the service; but now, just after this performance, I feel freshness and at the same time new strength to continue my career. I am already comforted by the thought that meanness among us does not remain hidden or condoned, that there, in the sight of all noble people, it is stricken with ridicule, that there is a pen that will not hinder the detection of our low movements, although this does not flatter our national pride, and that there is a noble government that will allow it to be shown to everyone who should, in the eyes; and this alone gives me the zeal to continue my useful service.

Mr. A. Let me make you one suggestion. I hold a significant public position. I need truly noble and honest helpers. I offer you a place where you will have a vast field of action, where you will receive incomparably more benefits and will be in sight.

A very modestly dressed man. Allow me to thank you from the bottom of my heart and from the bottom of my heart for such an offer and at the same time let me refuse it. If I already feel that I am useful to my place, is it noble of me to leave it? And how can I leave him without being firmly convinced that some fine fellow will not sit down after me and begin to do pressing. If this offer is made by you in the form of a reward, then let me tell you: I applauded the author of the play on an equal basis with others, but I did not challenge him. What is his reward? You liked the play - praise it, and he - he only fulfilled his duty. In our country, really, it has come to such a point that not only on the occasion of some feat, but simply, if only someone does not spoil anyone, in life and in the service, then he already considers himself God knows what a virtuous person, becomes seriously angry, if not notice and do not reward him. “Have mercy,” he says, “I have lived an honest life for a whole century, I have done almost no meanness at all, how can they not give me either a rank or an order?” No, according to me, who is not able to be noble without encouragement - I do not believe his nobility; his mouse nobility is not worth a penny.

Mr. A. At least you will not refuse me your acquaintance. Forgive my stubbornness; you see for yourselves that it is a consequence of my sincere respect. Give me your address.

A very modestly dressed man. Here is my address; but rest assured that I will not allow you to use it and will come to you tomorrow morning. Excuse me, I have not been brought up in a high society and I do not know how to speak ... But to meet such generous attention in a statesman, such a desire for goodness ... God forbid that every sovereign be surrounded by such people! (Quickly leaves.)

Mr. A. (turning over the card in his hands). I look at this card and at this surname unknown to me, and somehow my soul becomes full. This sad impression at the beginning dissipated by itself. God bless you, our little-known Russia! In the wilderness, in your forgotten corner, such a pearl is hiding, and, probably, he is not alone. They, like sparks of gold ore, are scattered among its rough and dark granites. There is a deeply comforting feeling in this phenomenon, and my soul was lit up after meeting this official, just as his own was lit up after the performance of a comedy. Farewell! Thank you for bringing me this meeting. (Exits.)

Mr. V. (going up to Mr. B.). Who was with you? Looks like he's a minister, huh?

Mr. P. (approaching from the other side). Have mercy, brother, well, what is it, how is it really? ..

Mr. B. What?

Mr. P. Well, but how to deduce this?

Mr. B. Why not?

Mr. P. Well, judge for yourself: well, how about it, right? All vices, yes vices; Well, what example will this set for the audience?

Mr. B. Do vices boast? After all, they are ridiculed.

Mr. P. Well, that's all, brother, no matter how you say it: respect ... because through this, respect for officials and positions is lost.

Mr. B. Respect is not lost either for officials or for positions, but for those who badly perform their positions.

Mr. V. But let me say, however, that all this is in some way already an insult, which more or less extends to everyone.

Mr. P. Exactly. That's what I wanted to point out to him. This is precisely the insult that is spreading. Now, for example, they will withdraw some titular councilor, and then ... er ... perhaps they will deduce ... and a real state councilor ...

Mr. B. Well, so what? The person must only be inviolable; and if I invented my own face, and gave him some of the vices that happen between us, and gave him the rank that I thought of, even if it were a real state councilor, and would say that this real state councilor is not like should be: what's wrong with that? Doesn't a goose also come across among real state councilors?

Mr. P. Well, brother, this is too much. How can a goose be a real state councilor? Well, even titular... No, you're too much.

Mr. V. How to expose the bad, why not expose the good, worthy of imitation?

Mr. B. Why? strange question: "why?" You can do a lot of such "why". Why did one father, wanting to extricate his son from a disorderly life, did not waste words and instructions, but brought him to the infirmary, where the terrible traces of a disorderly life appeared before him in all their horror? Why did he do it?

Mr. V. But let me tell you: these are already in some way our social wounds that need to be hidden, not shown.

Mr. P. It's true. I completely agree with this. We need to hide the bad, not show.

Mr. B. If these words were spoken by someone else, and not by you, I would say that they were driven by hypocrisy, and not true love to the fatherland. In your opinion, it would only be necessary to close, heal somehow from the outside these, as you call, social wounds, so long as they were not visible for the time being, and let the disease rage inside - there is no need for that. There is no need that it should explode and show up with such symptoms when it is already too late for any cure. Until then, there is no need. You don’t want to know that without a deep heartfelt confession, without a Christian consciousness of our sins, without exaggerating them in our own eyes, we are unable to rise above them, unable to soar with our souls above the contemptible in life. You do not want to know this! Let a man remain deaf, let him go through his life sleepily, let him not tremble, let him not weep in the depths of his heart, let him bring his soul to such a state of sleep that nothing can shock it! No... forgive me! Cold selfishness moves the mouth that utters such speeches, and not the saint, pure love to humanity. (Exits.)

Mr. P. (after some silence). Why are you silent? What? What did you say, huh?

Mr. V. (silent).

Mr. P. (continuing). He can say whatever he likes to himself, but after all, our wounds, so to speak.

Mr. V. (aside). Well, these wounds caught on his tongue! He will talk about them to both the oncoming and the transverse!

Mr. P. So, perhaps, I can say a bunch of things, but what of it? .. And here is Prince N. Listen, prince, don’t go!

Prince N. And what?

Mr. P. Well, let's talk, stop! Well, how's the play?

Prince N. Yes, it's funny.

Mr. P. But, nevertheless, tell me: how to present it? what does it look like...

Prince N. Why not represent?

Mr. P. Well, judge for yourself, well, how can it be: suddenly there is a rogue on the stage - after all, these are all our wounds.

Prince N. What wounds?

Mr. P. Yes, these are our wounds, our social wounds, so to speak.

Prince N. (with annoyance). Take them for yourself! Let them be yours, not my wounds! Why are you poking them at me? I must go home. (Exits.)

Mr. P. (continuing). And then again, what the hell was he talking about here? He says: a real state councilor can be a goose. Well, let it be titular, it can be allowed ...

Mr. V. However, let's go, fully interpret; I think everyone passing by has already learned that you are a real state councilor. (Aside.) There are people who have the art of cursing everything. Your thought, having repeated, they know how to make it so vulgar that you yourself blush. If you say something stupid, it might have slipped through unnoticed - no, an admirer and friend will be found who will certainly use it and make it even more stupid than it is. It's even annoyingly true: it's as if he's planted me in the dirt. (They leave.)

The military and civilian go out together.

State. After all, here you are, gentlemen of the military! You say: "this should be brought to the stage"; you are ready to laugh to your heart's content at some civilian official; but somehow touch on the military, just say that there are officers in such and such a regiment, not to mention vicious inclinations, but just say: there are officers of bad taste, with indecent tricks - but because of this alone you are ready to climb with a complaint to the Council of State.

Military. Well, listen, who do you think I am? Of course, there are such Donquishots among us, but also believe that there are many truly sensible people who will always be glad if a discrediting rank is brought out to public ridicule. And what's wrong with that? Give it, give it to us! We are ready to watch every day.

Statsky (aside). This is how a person always shouts: "Serve! Serve!" and if you give it, you will get angry. (They leave.)

Two backes.

The first bekesha. The French, too, for example; but they are all very nice. Well, you remember, in yesterday's vaudeville: he undresses, gets into bed, grabs a salad bowl from the table and puts it under the bed. It is, of course, immodest, but cute. You can look at all this, it does not offend ... I have a wife and children every day in the theater. And here - well, what is it, right? - some bastard, a peasant whom I would not let in the hall, will fall apart with boots, yawn or pick his teeth - well, what is it, right? what does it look like?

Another bekesha. The French are different. There societe, mon cher6, It's impossible for us. After all, our writers are completely without any education: all this was mostly brought up in the seminary. He is inclined towards wine, he is a slut. Some kind of writer also went to visit my footman: where can he have an idea about good society? (They leave.)

Secular lady (accompanied by two men: one in a tailcoat, the other in a uniform). But what kind of people, what kind of faces are brought out! at least one attracted ... Well, why don't they write in our country the way the French write, for example, like Dumas and others? I do not demand models of virtue; bring me a woman who would be mistaken, who would even cheat on her husband, indulge in, let's say, the most vicious and forbidden love; but imagine it captivatingly, so that I would be impelled to her by participation, that I would love her ... But here all the faces are one more disgusting than the other.

A man in a uniform. Yes, trivial, trivial.

Secular lady. Tell me: why is it still so trivial in Russia?

A man in a tailcoat. My soul, afterward you will tell me why it is trivial: they are shouting for our carriage. (They leave.)

Three men enter together.

First. Why not laugh? you can laugh; but what is the object of ridicule—abuses and vices? What a laugh!

Second. So why laugh? Is it over the virtues, over the virtues of man?

First. No; Yes, this is not a subject for comedy, my dear! This is already in some way related to the government. As if there were no other subjects to write about?

Second. What are the other items?

First. Well, are there any funny secular cases? Well, suppose, for example, I went for a walk to Aptekarsky Island, and the coachman suddenly took me there to Vyborgskaya or to the Smolny Monastery. Are there any funny linkages?

Second. That is, you want to take away any serious meaning from comedy. But why issue an indispensable law? There are plenty of comedies in the exact flavor you want. Why not allow the existence of two or three such as the one played now? If you like the ones you are talking about, go only to the theater: there every day you will see a play where one hid under a chair, and another pulled him out by the foot.

Third. Well, no, listen: it's not that. Everything has its limits. There are things that, so to speak, should not be laughed at, which in some way are already sacred.

Second (to himself, with a bitter smile). So it is always in the world: laugh at the truly noble, at what constitutes the high shrine of the soul, no one will become an intercessor; laugh at the vicious, vile and low - everyone will shout: "he laughs at the shrine."

First. Well, you see, I see you are convinced now: don't say a word. Believe me, it is impossible not to be convinced: this is the truth. I myself am an impartial person, and I don’t say that ... but, simply, this is not an author's work, this is not a subject for comedy. (They leave.)

Second (to himself). I confess that I would never want to be in the place of the author. Please please! Choose unimportant secular cases, everyone will say: "He writes nonsense, there is no deep moral purpose"; choose a subject that has some serious moral purpose - they will say: "None of his business, write nonsense!" (Exits.)

young lady big light accompanied by her husband.

Husband. Our carriage should not be far away, we can leave soon.

Mister N. (going up to the lady). What do I see! You have come to watch a Russian play!

Young lady. What's wrong with that? Am I not a bit patriotic anymore?

Mr. N. Well, if so, then you have not satiated your patriotism very much. Are you really scolding the play?

Young lady. Not at all. I find that many things are very true: I laughed heartily.

Mr. N. Why did you laugh? Is it because you like to laugh at everything that is Russian?

Young lady. Because it was just funny. Because that baseness, baseness was brought out, which, no matter what dress she dressed up, even if she was not in a district town, but here, around us, she would have been the same baseness or baseness: that's why she laughed.

Mr. N. A very clever lady told me just now that she also laughed, but that for all that, the play made a sad impression on her.

Young lady. I don't want to know how your smart lady felt; but my nerves are not so sensitive, and I am always glad to laugh at what is internally funny. I know that there are some of us who are ready to laugh at the crooked nose of a person and do not have the heart to laugh at the crooked soul of a person.

(A young lady with her husband also appears in the distance.)

Mr. N. Ah, here comes your friend. I would like to know her opinion on comedy. (Both ladies shake hands with each other.)

First lady. I saw you laughing from afar.

Second lady. Who didn't laugh? everyone laughed.

Mr. N. Did you feel any sad feeling?

Second lady. I confess, I was, for sure, sad. I know all this is very true; I myself saw a lot of this, but for all that it was hard for me.

Mr. N. So you didn't like the comedy?

Second lady. Well, listen, who says it? I already tell you that I laughed with all my heart, and even more than all the others; I think they even took me for a madman ... But I was sad because I would like to rest on at least one kind face. Ego excess and a lot of low...

Mr. N. Speak, speak!

Husband of the first lady. And that's exactly what you don't recommend. The ladies certainly want a knight, so that he immediately repeats to them every word about nobility, even the most vulgar style.

Second lady. Not at all. How little you know us! Here you own this! You just love only one word and talk about nobility. I heard the judgment of one of you: one fat man shouted in such a way that, I think, he forced everyone to turn to himself - that this is slander, that such meanness and meanness are never done in our country. And who spoke? - The lowest and meanest person who is ready to sell his soul, conscience and whatever you want. I don't want to just call him by his first name.

Mr. N. Well, tell me, who was it?

Second lady. Why do you need to know? Yes, he is not alone; I heard incessantly shouting around us: "This is a disgusting mockery of Russia, a mockery of the government! But how can this be allowed? What will the people say?" Why were they screaming? Is it because they really thought and felt it? - Sorry. Because, to make a noise, to ban the play, because, perhaps, they found something similar to themselves in it. Here are your real, not theatrical knights!

Husband of the first lady. ABOUT! Yes, you are already beginning to be born a little anger!

Second lady. Anger, just anger. Yes, I'm angry, very angry. And it is impossible not to be evil, seeing how meanness appears under all sorts of guises.

Husband of the first lady. Well, yes: you would like a knight to jump out now, jump over some abyss, break his neck ...

Second lady. Sorry.

Husband of the first lady. Naturally: what does a woman need? She definitely needs a romance in her life.

Second lady. No no no! Two hundred times ready to say: no! This is a vulgar, old idea that you constantly impose on us. A woman has more true generosity than a man. A woman cannot, a woman is not able to do those mean and vile things that you do. A woman cannot be hypocritical where you are hypocritical, she cannot look through her fingers at those base things that you look at. She has enough nobility to say all this without looking around to see if anyone likes it or not - because you need to talk. What is vile is vile, no matter how you hide it and no matter how we look. It's vile, vile!

Husband of the first lady. Yes, I see you are angry in every way.

Second lady. Because I'm frank and can't stand it when people tell lies.

Husband of the first lady. Well, don't be angry, give me your pen! I was joking.

Second lady. Here's my hand, I'm not angry. (Turning to Mr. N.) Listen, advise the author to bring out a noble and honest person in a comedy.

Mr. N. But how to do it? Well, if he brings out an honest man, and this honest man will look like a theater knight?

Second lady. No, if he feels strongly and deeply, then his hero will not be a theatrical knight.

Mr. N. Why, I think it's not so easy to do.

Second lady. Simply, say better that your author does not have deep and strong movements of the heart.

Mr. N. Why is that so?

Second lady. Well, yes, one who constantly and eternally laughs cannot have too high feelings: he cannot be familiar with what only a tender heart feels.

Mr. N. That's good! So, in your opinion, the author should not be a noble person?

Second lady. Well, you see, you are now reinterpreting the other way. I do not say a word about the fact that the comedian does not have nobility and a strict concept of honor in the whole sense of the word. I only say that he could not ... shed a heart tear, love something strongly, with all the depths of his soul.

Husband of the second lady. But how can you say it in the affirmative?

Second lady. I can because I know. All the people who laughed or were scoffers, they were all selfish, almost all selfish; of course, noble egoists, but still egoists.

Mr. N. So, you strongly prefer only that kind of compositions, where only lofty human movements are at work?

Second lady. O, sure! I will always put them higher, and, I confess, I have more sincere faith in such an author.

Husband of the first lady (addressing Mr. N). Well, don't you see - the same thing comes out again? This is feminine taste. For them, the most vulgar tragedy is higher than the most best comedy just because she's a tragedy...

Second lady. Shut up, I'll be angry again. (Turning to Mr. N.) Well, tell me, did I not tell the truth: after all, a comedian must certainly have a cold soul?

Husband of the second lady. Or hot, because the irritability of the character also excites ridicule and satire.

Second lady. Well, or irritable. But what does this mean? - This means that the cause of such works was nevertheless bile, bitterness, indignation, perhaps fair in all respects. But there is nothing to show that it is generated high love to humanity... in a word, love. Is not it?

Mr. N. It's true.

Mr. N. How can I tell you? I do not know him so briefly that I can judge his soul. But, considering everything I've heard about him, he certainly must be either an egoist or a very irritable person.

Second lady. Well, you see, I knew that well.

First lady. I don't know why, but I don't want him to be selfish.

Husband of the first lady. And here comes our footman, so the carriage is ready. Farewell. (Shaking the second lady's hand.) You're joining us, aren't you? Do we drink tea?

First lady (leaving). Please!

Second lady. Certainly.

Husband of the second lady. It seems that our carriage is also ready. (They go after them.)

Two spectators come out.

First. Explain to me this: why, examining separately every action, face and character, you see: all this is true, alive, taken from nature, but together it already seems to be something huge, exaggerated, caricatured, so that, leaving the theater, you involuntarily ask Q: Do such people exist? And meanwhile after all they not that villains.

Second. No, they are not villains at all. They are exactly what the proverb says: "not a bad soul, but just a rogue."

First. And then one more thing: this huge accumulation, this excess - isn't there already a lack of comedy? Tell me, where is there such a society, which would consist of all such people, so that there would not be, if not half, then at least some part of decent people? If comedy is to be a picture and mirror of our social life, then it must reflect it in all fidelity.

Second. Firstly, in my opinion, this comedy is not a picture at all, but rather a frontispiece. You see, both the scene and the setting are perfect. Otherwise, the author would not have made obvious errors and anachronisms, he would not have inserted even to other people those speeches that, by their nature and the place occupied by the persons, do not belong to them. Only the first irritability took for personality that in which there is not even a shadow of personality and which belongs more or less to the personality of all people. This is a gathering place: from everywhere, from different parts of Russia, exceptions to truth, error and abuse have flocked here to serve one idea - to produce in the viewer a bright, noble disgust from many something low. The impression is even stronger because none of the persons cited has lost his human image: human is heard everywhere. That is why the heart tremor is even deeper. And laughing, the spectator involuntarily turns back, as if feeling that close to him is what he laughed at, and that every minute he must stand guard so that it does not burst into his own soul. I think the most amusing thing is to hear the author reproaches: "why his faces and characters are not attractive," while he used everything to push them away. Yes, if even one honest person were placed in a comedy, and placed with all the fascination, then every one would go over to the side of this honest person and would completely forget about those who so frightened them now. These images, perhaps, would not be constantly dreaming, as if alive, after the end of the performance; the spectator would not carry away the sad feeling and would not say: "Do such people really exist?"

First. Yes. Well, this, however, is not suddenly understood.

Second. Very natural. The inner meaning is always comprehended later. And the more alive, the brighter the images in which he has clothed himself and into which he has been shattered, the more everyone's attention stops on the images. Only putting them together will you get the result and the meaning of creation. But disassemble and fold such letters quickly, read tops and suddenly - not everyone can; but until then they will see only letters for a long time. And you will see, here I am telling you this in advance: first of all, every provincial town in Russia will get angry and will assert that this is an evil satire, a vulgar, low invention aimed specifically at him. (They leave.)

One official. This is a vulgar, low invention; this is satire, libel!

Another official. Now, there is nothing left. No need for laws, no need to serve. The uniform that I have on—it means that we must throw it away: it is now a rag.

Two young people are running.

One. Well, everyone got angry. I have heard so much talk that I can, by looking, guess what everyone thinks about the play.

Another. Well, what does this one think?

First. Here is the one that puts on an overcoat in the sleeves?

Another. Yes.

First. This is what he thinks: "For such a comedy you should be sent to Nerchinsk! .." However, it seems that the upper population has moved; vaudeville, apparently, is over. Now the riffraff are pouring in. Let's go! (Both leave.)

(The noise increases; running around is heard on all the stairs. Armenians, sheepskin coats, bonnets, German long-brimmed coats of merchants run. Triangular hats and sultans, overcoats of all kinds: frieze, military, second-hand and dandy - with beavers. The crowd pushes the gentleman putting on his overcoat in his sleeve ; the gentleman steps aside and continues to put it on aside. Gentlemen and officials of all sorts and sorts appear in the crowd. Footmen in liveries clear the way for the ladies. A woman's cry is heard: "Fathers, pushed from all sides!")

A young official of evasive nature (running up to the gentleman putting on his overcoat). Your Excellency, let me help you!

The gentleman in the overcoat. Ah, hello! Are you here? Did you come to watch?

Young official. Yes, your Excellency, a funny point.

The gentleman in the overcoat. Nonsense! nothing funny!

Young official. It is true, Your Excellency: nothing at all.

The gentleman in the overcoat. For such things, you need to flog, not praise.

Young official. It's true, Your Excellency!

The gentleman in the overcoat. Here, young people are allowed into the theater. A lot of useful things will come out! Here you are: now, tea, will you come to the office, will you be directly rude?

Young official. How can you, Your Excellency! .. Allow me to clear the way forward for you! (To the people, pushing one and the other.) Hey, you, step aside, the general is coming! (Approaching, with unusual courtesy, two smartly dressed.) Gentlemen, do me a favor, let the general pass!

Well dressed, stepping aside and making way.

First. Do you know which general? Must be some famous one?

Second. I don't know, I never saw him.

An official of a talkative nature (picking up from behind). Simply, a state adviser, he is only listed in the fourth grade in his place. What is happiness? In the fifteen years of service of Vladimir, Anna, Stanislav, 3,000 rubles of salary, two thousand canteens, yes from the council, yes from the commission, and even from the department.

Gentlemen well dressed (one to another). Let's go! (They leave.)

Talkative official. Must be mother's sons. Tea, they serve in a foreign college. I don't like comedies; I prefer tragedy. (Exits.)

OFFICER (making his way arm in arm with the lady). Hey, you beards, what are you pushing? Don't you see, lady?

Merchant (with a lady by the arm). At yourselves, father, lady.

The merchant's voice. It, so please see, it is here more, so to speak, from the maral side. Of course, there are, so to speak, all sorts, sir. Why, even then, if you please, judge that an honest person, by chance, will have to ... And as for marality, this is the same for the nobles.

Two officers who recognize each other are talking through the crowd.

First. Michelle, are you there?

Second. There.

First. Well, I'm there too.

An official of important appearance. I would ban everything. Nothing needs to be printed. Use enlightenment, read, not write. Books are already written enough, no more needed.

A handsome and solid gentleman (he speaks with fervor to a nondescript and short one). Morality, morality suffers, that's the main thing!

The gentleman is short and nondescript, but of a poisonous quality. After all, morality is a relative thing.

Handsome and solid gentleman. What do you mean by "relative"?

A nondescript, but poisonous gentleman. That which everyone measures morality relative to himself. One calls it morality to take off his hat in the street; another calls it morality to look through one's fingers at how one steals; the third calls morality the services rendered to his mistress. After all, as usual, as each of our brethren says to his subordinates? - He says from above: "Dear sir, try to fulfill your duty towards God, the sovereign, the fatherland," and you, they say, understand yourself about what. However, this is so only in the provinces; It doesn't happen in the capitals, does it? Here, if someone has two houses in three years, why is that? It's all about honesty, right?

A handsome and dense gentleman (aside). Filthy as hell, and tongue like a snake.

Nondescript, but poisonous gentleman (pushing the arm of a completely unfamiliar person, tells him, nodding at the handsome gentleman). Four houses in one street; everyone is next to each other, they grew up at the age of six! What effect does honesty have on vegetative power, huh?

THE STRANGER (leaving hastily). Sorry, I didn't hear it.

A nondescript, but poisonous person (pushing an unfamiliar neighbor by the arm). How is deafness spreading in the city these days, huh? That's what an unhealthy and damp climate means!

Unknown neighbor. Yes, so is the flu. All of my children have been ill.

A nondescript, but poisonous person. Yes, and flu and deafness; mumps is also in the throat. (Disappears in the crowd.)

Conversation in a group on the side.

First. And they say that a similar incident happened to the author himself: he was in prison in some town for debts.

The gentleman on the other side of the group (picking up the speech). No, it's not in the prison, it was on the tower. It was seen by those who passed by. They say it was something extraordinary. Imagine a poet highest tower, around the mountain, the location is amazing, and he reads poetry from there. Isn't it true that there is some special feature of the writer here?

Lord of the negative. Not smart at all. I know, he served, he was almost expelled from the service: he did not know how to write requests.

Simple liar. A brisk, brisk head! He was not given a place for a long time, so what do you think? He directly wrote a letter to the minister. Yes, as he wrote! - Quintillian style. One thing is how he began: "dear sir!" And then he went, and went, and went ... he rolled around for eight pages. The minister, as he read: "Well," he says, "thank you, thank you! I see you have many enemies. Be the head of the department!" And right from the scribes he waved to the heads of the department.

Mr. good-natured nature (referring to another person of a cold-blooded nature). The devil knows who to believe! And he was in prison, and climbed the tower! And they kicked me out of service, and they gave me a place!

Cold-blooded gentleman. Why, it's all impromptu.

Good-natured gentleman. How is it impromptu?

Cold-blooded Mr. So. After all, they themselves do not know for two minutes what they will hear from themselves. Without the knowledge of the owner, their tongue suddenly blurts out the news, and the owner is glad - he returns home, as if he had eaten. And the next day he had already forgotten about what he himself had invented. It seems to him that he heard from others - and went to pass it around the city to everyone.

Good-natured gentleman. This, however, is shameless: to lie and not feel for yourself.

Cold-blooded Mr. Yes, there are sensitive ones. There are those who feel that they are lying, but they already consider it necessary for conversation: the field is red with rye, and speech is a lie.

Middle class lady. But what an evil mocker this author must be! I confess, I would never want to catch his eye: that way he suddenly notices the funny in me.

Mister with weight. I don't know what kind of person this is. This, this, this... Nothing is sacred to this man; today he will say: such and such an adviser is not good, and tomorrow he will say that there is no God either. After all, there is only one step.

Second Mr. Laugh! Yes, you can't joke with laughter. It means destroying all respect - that's what it means. But after all, after all this, everyone will beat me up in the street, saying: “But they are laughing at you; and you have the same rank, so here’s a crack for you!” After all, this is what it means.

Third Mr. Still would! This is a serious thing! They say: "trinket, trifles, theatrical performance." No, these are not mere trinkets; you need to pay close attention to this. They send people to Siberia for such things. Yes, if I had the power, the author would not utter a word from me. I would plant him in such a place that he would not even see the light of God.

A group of people appears, God knows what kind, however, of noble appearance and decently dressed.

First. Better stand here while the crowd comes out. Well, what is it, right! Make noise, applause, as if God knows what! A trifle, some kind of empty theatrical play and raise such an alarm, shout, call the author - well, what is it!

Second. However, the play amused and entertained.

First. Well, yes, I am amused, as any trifle amuses me as usual. But why is there such cries and talk from this? They talk as if about some important thing, they applaud ... Well, what is it! Well, I understand, if any singer or dancer - well, there I understand: there you are surprised at art, flexibility, agility, natural talent. Well, what about here? They shout: "writer! writer! writer!" What is a writer? That sometimes a witty word will come across, and write off something from nature ... But what kind of work is here? What's wrong with that? After all, these are all fables - and nothing more.

Second. Yes, of course, the thing is not important.

First. Consider: well, a dancer, for example: there is still art, you can’t do it in any way, what he does. Well, if I want, for example: yes, my legs simply won’t rise. Well, if I do an antrasha, I won’t do it for anything. But you can write without learning. I don't know who the author is, but I was told that he is a perfect ignoramus, knows nothing: he seems to have been expelled from somewhere.

Second. But, nevertheless, all the same, he must know something: without this it is impossible to write.

First. Yes, pardon, what can he know? Do you know what a writer is? empty man! This is known to the whole world - it is not good for any business. Already tried to use them, but abandoned. Well, judge for yourself, well, what are they writing? After all, this is all nonsense, fables! If you want, I will write it this very hour, and you will write, and he will write, and everyone will write.

Second. Yes, of course, why not write. If only a drop of the mind in the head, it's possible.

First. Yes, you don't need a brain. Why is the mind here? After all, these are all stories. Well, if there were, let’s say, some kind of scientific science, some subject that you don’t know yet, but what is it? After all, every man knows this. You see it on the street every day. Just sit by the window, and write down everything that is done—that's the whole point!

Third. This is true. How do you think, right, what nonsense they use time!

First. Exactly, a waste of time - nothing more. Fables, trifles! It would just be necessary to forbid giving them pen and ink in their hands. However, the people are coming out, let's go! Raise a fuss, shout, encourage! but it's just nonsense! Fables, trifles! fables! (They leave. The crowd thins out, some stragglers run.)
Kind official. And everything would be, right, well, to expose at least one honest person! All rogues, yes rogues!

One of the people. Hey, you, wait for me at the crossroads! I'll run, I'll take my gloves.

One of the gentlemen (looking at his watch). However, it's almost an hour. I have never left the theater so late. (Exits.)

Retired official. Only time was wasted! No, I will never go to the theater again. (Leaves. The canopy is empty.)

Author of the play (leaving). I heard more than I expected. What a motley heap of talk! Happiness to a comedian who was born among a nation where society has not yet merged into one motionless mass, where it has not clothed itself with one crust of the old prejudice, enclosing the thoughts of all in the same form and measure, where every person, then opinion, where everyone is himself. character maker. What diversity in these opinions, and how this firm, clear Russian mind flashed everywhere! and in this noble aspiration of a statesman! and in this lofty selflessness of an official huddled in the wilderness! and in the gentle beauty of the generous female soul! and in the aesthetic sense of connoisseurs! and in the simple, true intuition of the people. How much, even in these unfriendly condemnations, that a comedian needs to know! What a living lesson! Yes, I am satisfied. But why does my heart feel sad? Strange: I'm sorry that no one noticed the honest face that was in my play. Yes, there was one honest, noble face that acted in it throughout its entire duration. That honest, noble face was laughter. He was noble, because he decided to speak out, despite the low importance that is given to him in the world. He was noble, because he decided to speak, in spite of the fact that he delivered the insulting nickname to the comedian - the nickname of a cold egoist, and even made him doubt the presence of the gentle movements of his soul. No one stood up for this laughter. I am a comedian, I served him honestly, and therefore I must become his intercessor. No, laughter is more significant and deeper than one thinks—not the kind of laughter that is engendered by temporary irritability, a bilious, sickly disposition of character; not that light laughter, which serves for the idle amusement and amusement of people; - but that laughter, which all emanates from the bright nature of man, emanates from it because at the bottom of it lies its eternally beating spring, which deepens the object, makes bright that which would slip through, without whose penetrating power a trifle and the emptiness of life would not frighten a man like that. The contemptible and insignificant, by which he indifferently passes every day, would not rise before him in such a terrible, almost caricature force, and he would not cry out, shuddering: "Could there be such people, ", according to his own consciousness, there are worse people. No, they are unjust who say that laughter disturbs. Only that which is gloomy, but laughter is bright, disturbs. it brings reconciliation to the soul. And the one who would take vengeance against an evil person is already almost reconciled with him, seeing the low movements of his soul ridiculed. Unjust are those who say that laughter has no effect on those against whom it is directed, and that the rogue will be the first to laugh at the rogue who is brought on the stage: the rogue-descendant will laugh, but the rogue-contemporary is not able to laugh. He hears that everyone already has an irresistible image left, that one low movement on his part is enough for this image to become his eternal nickname; and even he who is no longer afraid of anything in the world is afraid of ridicule. No, only one deeply kind soul can laugh with a kind, bright laugh. But they do not hear the mighty power of such laughter: "what is funny is low," says the light; only what is pronounced in a stern, tense voice is only given the name of a high one. But, God! how many people pass every day for whom there is no lofty thing in the world! Everything that was created by inspiration is trifles and fables for them; creating Shakespeare for them fables; the holy movements of the soul are fables for them. No, it is not the offended petty vanity of the writer that compels me to say this, not because my immature, weak creations have now been called fables, no, I see my vices and see that I am worthy of reproach; but my soul could not endure indifferently when the most perfect creations were honored by the names of trifles and fables, when all the luminaries and stars of the world were recognized as the creators of nothing but trifles and fables! My soul ached when I saw how many there, in the midst of life itself, were unanswerable, dead inhabitants, terrible with the motionless cold of their souls and the barren desert of their hearts; my soul ached when not even a ghost of expression trembled on their insensible faces from that which plunged a deeply loving soul into heavenly tears, and their tongue did not stagnate to utter their own words. eternal word: "fables!" Fables! .. And the centuries have passed, cities and peoples have been demolished and disappeared from the face of the earth, everything that was blown away like smoke, and fables live and are repeated to this day, and wise kings, deep rulers, a beautiful old man and a young man full of noble aspirations listen to them . Fables! .. And the balconies and railings of theaters are moaning: everything shook from top to bottom, turned into one feeling, in one moment, into one person, all people met like brothers, in one spiritual movement, and a grateful hymn thunders with friendly applause which has been gone for five hundred years. Do his decayed bones hear it in the grave? Does his soul, having endured the severe grief of life, respond? And there, among the same rows of the shocked crowd, came dejected by grief and the unbearable burden of life, ready to desperately raise his hands on himself - and suddenly refreshing tears splashed from his eyes, and he went out reconciled to life and again asks grief from heaven and suffering, just to live and burst into tears again from such fables. Fables!.. But the world would doze off without such fables, life would become shallow, souls would be covered with mold and ooze. Fables! .. Oh, may the names of those who favorably listen to such fables remain forever holy in posterity: the wonderful finger of Providence was inseparably over the heads of their creators. In moments of even trouble and persecution, everything that was noblest in the states became, first of all, their intercessor: the crowned monarch overshadowed them with his royal shield from the height of the inaccessible throne. Cheer up on the road! And may the soul not be embarrassed by condemnation, but may it gratefully accept the indications of shortcomings, not being overshadowed even then, if it were denied lofty movements and holy love for humanity! The world is like a whirlpool: opinions and rumors are always moving in it, but time grinds everything: like a husk, false ones fly off, and, like hard grains, motionless truths remain. What was recognized as empty may later appear armed with a strict meaning. In the depths of cold laughter, hot sparks of eternal mighty love can also be found. And why, perhaps, it will be recognized later by everyone that, by virtue of the same laws, why a proud and strong person is insignificant and weak in misfortune, and a weak one grows like a giant in the midst of troubles, - by virtue of the same laws, who often sheds sincere, deep tears, he seems to laugh more than anyone in the world! ..

1 It goes without saying that the author of the play is an ideal person: he depicts the position of a comedian in society, a comedian who has chosen the subject of ridicule for abuses in the circle of various estates and positions. (Approx. Gogol.)
2 Vaudeville is a small, mostly one-act theatrical play, of a cheerful nature, with the singing of verses. In the first half of the 19th century, the performance certainly ended with a vaudeville.
3 The French expression (literally - "as it should") is decent, decent; comme il faut - decent, in the sense of belonging to the wealthy elite of society.
4 Kotzebue August (1761-1819) - German playwright, author of more than 200 plays that had at one time big success.
5 Aristophanes (444-380 BC) - the greatest dramatic writer ancient greece, bright representative political comedy; the work of Aristophanes reflected the fierce class and political struggle between the Athenian aristocracy and democracy.
6 Society, my dear.
7 Frontispiece - a page of a book with a picture in front of the title, or title, page.
Quintilian was an ancient Roman writer, author of several works on the theory of eloquence.

“I escaped like a whirlpool! Finally, there are shouts and applause! The whole theater rumbles! .. That's glory! God, how my heart would beat seven or eight years ago, how everything in me would tremble! But that was a long time ago. I was then young, bold as a youth. Blessed is the providence that did not let me taste the early delights and praises! Now ... But the reasonable cold of years will make at least someone wiser. You will finally find out that applause still does not mean much and are ready to serve as a reward for everything: whether an actor comprehends the whole secret of the soul and heart of a person, whether a dancer achieves the ability to draw monograms with his feet, whether a magician - applause thunders to all of them! .. "

* * *

The following excerpt from the book Theatrical tour after the presentation of a new comedy (N. V. Gogol, 1842) provided by our book partner - the company LitRes.

Canopy of the theatre. On one side you can see the stairs leading to the lodges and galleries, in the middle the entrance to the chairs and the amphitheater; exit on the other side. A distant rumble of applause is heard.

Several decently dressed people appear; one says to the other:

Let's get out now. A minor vaudeville will be played.

Both leave.

Two comme il faut dense properties, go down the stairs.

The first comme il faut. It would be good if the police did not drive my carriage far away. What is the name of this young actress, do you know?

Second comme il faut. No, but very stupid.

The first comme il faut. Yes, not bad; but still something is missing. Yes, I recommend: new restaurant: fresh green peas were served to us yesterday (kisses fingertips)- charm! (Both leave.)

An officer runs, another holds his hand.

First officer. Let's stay!

Another officer. No, brother, you can’t lure you to vaudeville with a roll. We know these plays that are given for a snack: lackeys instead of actors, and women are a freak on a freak.

They leave.

Secular man, smartly dressed (coming down the stairs). The rogue tailor made me pantaloons, all the time it was embarrassing to sit. For this, I intend to delay him again, and for two years I will not pay my debts. (Leaves).

Also a man of the world, thicker (he speaks with liveliness to another). Never, never, believe me, he will not sit down to play with you. Less than one and a half hundred rubles, Robert, he does not play. I know this well, because my brother-in-law, Pafnutiev, plays with him every day.

Middle-aged official (coming out with outstretched arms). It's just, the devil knows what it is! sort of … sort of … It doesn't look like anything. (Gone).

Sir, somewhat careless about literature (addressing another). After all, this, however, seems to be a translation?

Another. Please, what a translation! The action takes place in Russia, our customs and ranks even.

Sir, carefree about literature. I remember, however, there was something in French, not exactly like that.

Both leave.

One of two spectators (also going out). Now nothing can be known. Wait what the magazines say and then you'll know.

Two bekeshi (one another). Well, how are you? I would like to know your opinion about comedy.

Another bekesha (making significant movements with her lips). Yes, of course, it’s impossible to say that there wasn’t something ... in its own way ... Well, of course, who is against this, so that it doesn’t happen again and ... where, so to speak … but anyway... (pursing his lips in affirmation) Yes Yes.

two officers.

First. I've never laughed so hard before.

Second. I think it's a great comedy.

First. Well, no, let's see what the magazines say, we need to put the critics on trial … Look look! (Pushes him by the arm.)

Second. What?

FIRST (pointing to one of the two coming down the stairs). Writer!

Second (hastily). Which?

First. This! chsh! let's hear what they have to say.

Second. Who else is with him?

First. Don't know; unknown person.

Both officers step aside and give them a seat.

It is unknown what kind of person. I cannot judge as to literary merit; but I think there are witty notes. Sharp, sharp.

Writer. Excuse me, what's so witty? What a low people brought out, what a tone? The jokes are the flattest; simple, even fat!

It is unknown what kind of person. Ah, that's another matter. I say: in regard to literary merit, I cannot judge; I just noticed that the play is funny, it gave pleasure.

Writer. Yes, it's not funny. Excuse me, what's so funny and what's the fun? The plot is incredible. All inconsistencies; no strings, no action, no consideration whatsoever.

It is unknown what kind of person. Well, I don't say anything against it. Literally so, literaryly it is not funny; but in relation, so to speak, from the side it has …

Writer. What is there? Damn, this doesn't even exist! So what is the spoken language? Who talks like that in high society? Well, tell me yourself, well, do we talk like that with you?

It is unknown what kind of person. This is true; You have noticed this very subtly. Exactly, I thought about it myself: there is no nobility in the conversation. All faces seem as if they cannot hide their low nature - this is true.

Writer. Well, you still praise!

It is unknown what kind of person. Who is praising? I don't praise. I myself now see that the play is nonsense. But suddenly

it is impossible to know this; I can't judge literary.

Both leave.

Another writer (enters, accompanied by listeners, to whom he speaks, waving his arms). Believe me, I know this business: disgusting play! dirty, dirty play! Not a single true face, all caricatures! This is not in nature; believe me, no, I know it better: I myself am a writer. They say: liveliness, observation … but it's all nonsense, it's all friends, friends praise, all friends! I have already heard that it is almost put into the Fonvizins, and the play is simply not worthy even to be called a comedy. Farce, farce, and the most unfortunate farce. The last, most empty comedy of Kotzebue in comparison with her is Mont Blanc in front of Pulkovo Hill. I will prove it to them all, I will prove it mathematically, like two times two. It's just that friends and acquaintances praised him beyond measure, and so now, tea, he thinks of himself that he is a little bit like Shakespeare. Our friends will always praise us. Here, for example, is Pushkin. Why is all of Russia now talking about him? All the friends shouted, shouted, and then after them, the whole of Russia began to shout. (They leave with the audience.)

Both officers lean forward and take their places.

First. This is true, this is absolutely true: it is a farce; I have said this before, a stupid farce, supported by friends. I admit, it was even disgusting to look at many things.

Second. Why, did you say you've never laughed like that before?

First. And this is another matter again. You don't understand, you need to explain. What's in this play? Firstly, there is no plot, no action, absolutely no consideration, all improbability and, moreover, all caricatures.

Two other officers are behind.

One (other). Who is discussing this? Looks like one of yours?

Another, looking sideways into the face of the reasoner, waved his hand.

First. What, stupid?

Another. No, not that … He has a mind, but now after the release of the magazine, and the book came out late - and nothing in his head. But, nevertheless, let's go.

They leave.

Two art lovers.

First. I am not at all one of those who resort only to words: dirty, disgusting, bad taste and the like. It is almost a proven fact that such words for the most part come from the lips of those who themselves are of a very dubious tone, talk about drawing rooms, and are allowed only in the anterooms. But it's not about them. I'm talking about the fact that there is definitely no plot in the play.

Second. Yes, if you take the plot in the sense in which it is usually accepted, that is, in the sense of a love affair, then it definitely does not exist. But it seems that it is time to stop relying so far on this eternal plot. It is worth taking a closer look around. Everything has changed a long time ago. Now, the desire to get a favorable place, to shine and outshine, by all means, the other, to avenge neglect, for ridicule, ties up the drama more strongly. Do not electricity now have rank, money capital, an advantageous marriage, than love?

First. All this is good; but even in this respect, I still don’t see the plot in the play.

Second. I am not going to say now whether there is a plot in the play or not. I will only say that in general they are looking for a private plot and do not want to see a common one. People are innocently accustomed to these incessant lovers, without whose marriage the play cannot end. Of course, this is the plot, but what is the plot? - an exact knot on the corner of a scarf. No, comedy must tie itself together, with all its mass, into one big, common knot. The tie should embrace all the faces, not just one or two, touch what excites, more or less, all the actors. Here every hero; the course and course of the piece produces a shock to the whole machine: not a single wheel should remain rusty and out of use.

First. But still they cannot be heroes; one or two should rule the others?

Second. Not to rule at all, but to dominate. And in the car, some wheels move more noticeably and more strongly; they can only be called the main ones; but the play is ruled by an idea, a thought. Without it, there is no unity in it. And everything can tie up: the very horror, the fear of expectation, the storm of the law going far away …

First. But it goes beyond giving comedy some more universal meaning.

Second. But isn't this its direct and real meaning? At the very beginning, comedy was a social, folk creation. At least, this is how her father himself, Aristophanes, showed her. After that, she entered the narrow gorge of a private tie, introduced a love move, the same indispensable tie. But how weak is this plot in the best comedians, how insignificant are these theatrical lovers with their cardboard love!

Third (coming up and hitting him lightly on the shoulder). You are wrong: love, like other feelings, can also enter into a comedy.

Second. I'm not saying she can't get in. But only love and all other feelings, more exalted, will only make a high impression when they are developed in all depth. Having taken care of them, one must inevitably sacrifice everything else. Everything that constitutes precisely the side of comedy will then already turn pale, and the significance of social comedy will certainly disappear.

Third. So, the subject of comedy must necessarily be low? Comedy will come out already low kind.

Second. For someone who will look at the words, and not delve into the meaning, this is so. But can't positive and negative serve the same purpose? Can't comedy and tragedy express the same lofty thought? Do not all, to the slightest bend of the soul of a mean and dishonest person, already draw the image of an honest person? Doesn't all this accumulation of baseness, deviations from laws and justice already make it clear what law, duty and justice require of us? In the hands of a skilled physician, both cold and hot water cure the same diseases with equal success. In the hands of talent, everything can serve as a tool for the beautiful, if only it is guided by the lofty thought to serve the beautiful.

Fourth (approaching). What can be beautiful? and what are you talking about?

First. We got into an argument about comedy. We're all talking about comedy in general, and no one has said anything about new comedy yet. What do you say?

Fourth. And here's what I'll say: talent is visible, observation of life, a lot of funny, true, taken from nature; but in general there is something missing in the whole play. Somehow you don't see the connection or the denouement. It is strange that our comedians cannot do without the government. Without him, we will not unleash a single comedy.

Third. This is true. And yet, on the other hand, it is very natural. We all belong to the government, we all almost serve; the interests of all of us are more or less connected with the government. Therefore, it is not surprising that this is reflected in the creations of our writers.

Fourth. So. Well, let this connection be heard. But the funny thing is that the play cannot end without a government. It will certainly appear, like the inevitable fate in the tragedies of the ancients.

Second. Well, you see: therefore, this is already something involuntary with our comedians. Therefore, this already constitutes some kind of distinctive character of our comedy. There is some kind of secret faith in the government in our chest. Well? there is nothing wrong here: God grant that the government always and everywhere hears its calling - to be the representative of providence on earth, and that we believe in it, as the ancients believed in fate that overtook crimes.

Fifth. Hello gentlemen! I only hear the word "government". Comedy aroused shouts and talk …

Second. Let's talk better about these rumors and shouts at my place than here, in the theatrical vestibule.

They leave.

Several respectable and decently dressed people appear one after another.

№ 1. So, so, I see: it is true that we have and it happens in other places and worse; but for what purpose, why deduce it? - that's the question. Why these performances? what is the use of them? that's what let me! What do I need to know that there are rogues in such and such a place? I just … I do not understand the need for such representations. (Leaves).

№ 2. No, this is not a mockery of vices; this is a disgusting mockery of Russia - that's what. It means to expose the government itself in a bad way, because to expose bad officials and abuses that occur in different classes means to expose the government itself. Simply, such notions should not even be allowed. (Leaves).

Enter Mr. A. and Mr. B., men of no small rank.

Mr A. I'm not talking about this; on the contrary, we need to show abuses, we need to see our misdeeds; and I do not in the least share the opinions of many overexcited patriots; but only it seems to me that there is not too much something sad here …

Mr B. I would very much like you to hear the remark of a very modestly dressed man who was sitting next to me in armchairs. … Ah, here he is!

Mr A. Who?

Mr B. It was this very modestly dressed man. (Turning to him). You and I have not finished our conversation, the beginning of which was so interesting to me.

A very modestly dressed man. And I, I confess, am very glad to continue it. Only now I have heard rumors, namely: that this is all untrue, that this is a mockery of the government, of our customs, and that this should not be imagined at all. This made me mentally recall and embrace the whole play, and I confess that the expression of the comedy now seemed to me even more significant. In it, it seems to me, hypocrisy is most strongly and deeply affected by laughter, a decent mask, under which baseness and meanness appear, a rogue making a face of a well-meaning person. I confess that I felt joy seeing how ridiculous the well-intentioned words in the mouth of a rogue and how hilariously ridiculous everything, from armchairs to the district, became the mask he put on. And after that, there are people who say that it is not necessary to bring this on stage! I heard one remark made, it seemed to me, by the way, by a rather decent person: “What will the people say when they see that we have such abuses?”

End of introductory segment.