What is Gogol laughing at? What N.V. laughs at

What did Gogol laugh at? On the spiritual meaning of the comedy "The Inspector General"

Voropaev V. A.

Be doers of the word, and not only hearers, deceiving yourselves. For whoever hears the word and does not do it is like a man looking at the natural features of his face in a mirror. He looked at himself, walked away, and immediately forgot what he was like.

Jacob 1, 22 - 24

My heart hurts when I see how people are mistaken. They talk about virtue, about God, and yet do nothing.

From Gogol's letter to his mother. 1833

"The Inspector General" is the best Russian comedy. Both in reading and in stage performance she is always interesting. Therefore, it is generally difficult to talk about any failure of The Inspector General. But, on the other hand, it is difficult to create a real Gogol performance, to make those sitting in the hall laugh with bitter Gogol laughter. As a rule, something fundamental, deep, on which the entire meaning of the play is based, eludes the actor or the viewer.

The premiere of the comedy, which took place on April 19, 1836 on the stage of the Alexandrinsky Theater in St. Petersburg, according to contemporaries, was a tremendous success. The mayor was played by Ivan Sosnitsky, Khlestakov Nikolai Dur - the best actors of that time. “The general attention of the audience, applause, sincere and unanimous laughter, the challenge of the author...,” recalled Prince Pyotr Andreevich Vyazemsky, “there was no lack of anything.”

At the same time, even the most ardent admirers of Gogol did not fully understand the meaning and significance of the comedy; the majority of the public perceived it as a farce. Many saw the play as a caricature of Russian bureaucracy, and its author as a rebel. According to Sergei Timofeevich Aksakov, there were people who hated Gogol from the moment The Inspector General appeared. Thus, Count Fyodor Ivanovich Tolstoy (nicknamed the American) said in a crowded meeting that Gogol is “an enemy of Russia and that he should be sent in chains to Siberia.” Censor Alexander Vasilyevich Nikitenko wrote in his diary on April 28, 1836: “Gogol’s comedy “The Inspector General” caused a lot of noise... Many believe that the government is in vain to approve this play, in which it is so cruelly condemned.”

Meanwhile, it is reliably known that the comedy was allowed to be staged (and therefore printed) in the highest resolution. Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich read the comedy in manuscript and approved it. On April 29, 1836, Gogol wrote to Mikhail Semenovich Shchepkin: “If it were not for the high intercession of the Sovereign, my play would never have been on stage, and there were already people trying to ban it.” The Emperor not only attended the premiere himself, but also ordered the ministers to watch The Inspector General. During the performance, he clapped and laughed a lot, and when leaving the box, he said: “Well, a play! Everyone enjoyed it, and I enjoyed it more than anyone else!”

Gogol hoped to meet the support of the tsar and was not mistaken. Soon after staging the comedy, he answered his ill-wishers in “Theatrical Travel”: “The magnanimous government saw deeper than you with its high intelligence the purpose of the writer.”

In striking contrast to the seemingly undoubted success of the play, Gogol’s bitter confession sounds: “The Inspector General” has been played - and my soul is so vague, so strange... I expected, I knew in advance how things would go, and with all that, the feeling is sad and An annoying and painful feeling came over me. My creation seemed disgusting to me, wild and as if not mine at all” (Excerpt from a letter written by the author shortly after the first presentation of “The Inspector General” to a certain writer).

Gogol was, it seems, the only one who perceived the first production of The Inspector General as a failure. What was the matter here that did not satisfy him? This was partly due to the discrepancy between the old vaudeville techniques in the design of the performance and the completely new spirit of the play, which did not fit into the framework of an ordinary comedy. Gogol persistently warned: “Most of all you need to be careful not to fall into caricature. There should be nothing exaggerated or trivial even in the last roles” (Warning for those who would like to play “The Inspector General” properly).

When creating the images of Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky, Gogol imagined them “in the skin” (as he put it) of Shchepkin and Vasily Ryazantsev, famous comic actors of that era. In the play, in his words, “it turned out to be a caricature.” “Already before the start of the performance,” he shares his impressions, “having seen them in costume, I gasped. These two little men, in their essence quite neat, plump, with decently smoothed hair, found themselves in some awkward, tall gray wigs, disheveled, unkempt, disheveled, with huge shirtfronts pulled out; and on stage they turned out to be such antics that it was simply unbearable.”

Meanwhile, Gogol's main goal is the complete naturalness of the characters and the verisimilitude of what is happening on stage. “The less the actor thinks about making people laugh and being funny, the more funny the role he has taken will be revealed. The funny will reveal itself by itself precisely in the seriousness with which each of the persons portrayed in the comedy is busy with his work.”

An example of such a “natural” manner of performance is the reading of “The Inspector General” by Gogol himself. Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev, who was once present at such a reading, says: “Gogol... struck me with the extreme simplicity and restraint of his manner, with some important and at the same time naive sincerity, which seemed not to care whether there were listeners here and what they thought. It seemed that Gogol was only concerned with how to delve into the subject, which was new to him, and how to convey his own impression more accurately. The effect was extraordinary - especially in comic, humorous places; it was impossible not to laugh - with a good, healthy laugh and the culprit of all this fun continued, not embarrassed by the general gaiety and, as if inwardly marveling at it, to become more and more immersed in the matter itself - and only occasionally, on the lips and around the eyes, the master’s sly smile trembled slightly noticeably. With what amazement Gogol uttered the famous phrase of the Governor about two rats (at the very beginning of the play): “They came, sniffed and went away!” - He even slowly looked around at us, as if asking for an explanation for such an amazing incident. It was only then that I realized how completely incorrect, superficial, and with what desire only to quickly make people laugh, “The Inspector General” is usually played on stage.

While working on the play, Gogol mercilessly expelled from it all elements of external comedy. Gogol's laughter is the contrast between what the hero says and how he says it. In the first act, Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky are arguing about which of them should start telling the news. This comic scene should not only make you laugh. For the heroes, it is very important who exactly tells the story. Their whole life consists of spreading all kinds of gossip and rumors. And suddenly the two received the same news. This is a tragedy. They are arguing over a matter. Bobchinsky must be told everything, nothing should be missed. Otherwise, Dobchinsky will complement.

Why, let us ask again, was Gogol dissatisfied with the premiere? The main reason was not even the farcical nature of the performance - the desire to make the audience laugh, but the fact that with the caricatured manner of the actors' performance, those sitting in the audience perceived what was happening on stage without applying it to themselves, since the characters were exaggeratedly funny. Meanwhile, Gogol’s plan was designed for precisely the opposite perception: to involve the viewer in the performance, to make them feel that the city depicted in the comedy exists not just somewhere, but to one degree or another in any place in Russia, and the passions and vices of officials exist in the soul of each of us. Gogol appeals to everyone. This is the enormous social significance of The Inspector General. This is the meaning of the famous remark of the Governor: “Why are you laughing? Are you laughing at yourself!” - facing the hall (precisely the hall, since no one is laughing on stage at this time). The epigraph also indicates this: “There is no point in blaming the mirror if your face is crooked.” In a kind of theatrical commentary on the play - "Theatrical Travel" and "The Inspector General's Denouement" - where the audience and actors discuss the comedy, Gogol seems to be striving to destroy the invisible wall separating the stage and the auditorium.

Regarding the epigraph that appeared later, in the 1842 edition, let’s say that this popular proverb means the Gospel by a mirror, which Gogol’s contemporaries, who spiritually belonged to the Orthodox Church, knew very well and could even support the understanding of this proverb, for example, with Krylov’s famous fable “ Mirror and Monkey." Here the Monkey, looking in the mirror, addresses the Bear:

“Look,” he says, “my dear godfather!

What kind of face is that there?

What antics and jumps she has!

I would hang myself from boredom

If only she was even a little like her.

But, admit it, there is

Of my gossips, there are five or six such crooks;

I can even count them on my fingers." -

Isn’t it better to turn on yourself, godfather?” -

Mishka answered her.

But Mishenka’s advice was wasted.

Bishop Varnava (Belyaev), in his major work “Fundamentals of the Art of Holiness” (1920s), connects the meaning of this fable with attacks on the Gospel, and this is precisely the meaning (among others) that Krylov had. The spiritual idea of ​​the Gospel as a mirror has long and firmly existed in the Orthodox consciousness. So, for example, St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, one of Gogol’s favorite writers, whose works he re-read more than once, says: “Christians! What is a mirror for the sons of this age, let the Gospel and the immaculate life of Christ be for us. They look in the mirrors and correct their bodies and the blemishes on the face are cleansed... Let us therefore offer this pure mirror before the eyes of our souls and look into it: is our life consistent with the life of Christ?”

The holy righteous John of Kronstadt, in his diaries published under the title “My Life in Christ,” remarks to “those who do not read the Gospels”: “Are you pure, holy and perfect, without reading the Gospel, and you do not need to look into this mirror? Or are you very ugly mentally and afraid of your ugliness?..”

Gogol’s world-famous comedy “The Inspector General” was written “at the suggestion” of A.S. Pushkin. It is believed that it was he who told the great Gogol the story that formed the basis of the plot of The Inspector General.
It must be said that the comedy was not immediately accepted - both in the literary circles of that time and at the royal court. Thus, the emperor saw in The Inspector General an “unreliable work” that criticized the state structure of Russia. And only after personal requests and explanations from V. Zhukovsky, the play was allowed to be staged in the theater.
What was the “unreliability” of the “Inspector General”? Gogol depicted in it a district town typical of Russia at that time, its orders and laws that were established by officials there. These “sovereign people” were called upon to equip the city, improve life, and make life easier for its citizens. However, in reality, we see that officials strive to make life easier and improve only for themselves, completely forgetting about their official and human “responsibilities.”
The head of the district town is his “father” - mayor Anton Antonovich Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky. He considers himself entitled to do whatever he wants - take bribes, steal government money, inflict unjust reprisals on the townspeople. As a result, the city turns out to be dirty and poor, there is disorder and lawlessness going on here; it’s not for nothing that the mayor is afraid that when the inspector arrives, he will be denounced: “Oh, wicked people! And so, scammers, I think they are preparing requests under the counter.” Even the money sent for the construction of the church was stolen by officials into their own pockets: “If they ask why a church was not built at a charitable institution, for which the amount was allocated a year ago, then do not forget to say that it began to be built, but burned down. I submitted a report about this.”
The author notes that the mayor is “a very intelligent person in his own way.” He began to make a career from the very bottom, achieving his position on his own. In this regard, we understand that Anton Antonovich is a “child” of the corruption system that has developed and is deeply rooted in Russia.
Other officials of the district town are equal to their boss - judge Lyapkin-Tyapkin, trustee of charitable institutions Zemlyanika, superintendent of schools Khlopov, postmaster Shpekin. All of them are not averse to putting their hand into the treasury, “profiting” from a bribe from a merchant, stealing what is intended for their charges, and so on. In general, “The Inspector General” paints a picture of Russian officials “universally” evading true service to the Tsar and the Fatherland, which should be the duty and matter of honor of a nobleman.
But the “social vices” in the heroes of “The Inspector General” are only part of their human appearance. All characters are also endowed with individual shortcomings, which become a form of manifestation of their universal human vices. We can say that the meaning of the characters depicted by Gogol is much larger than their social position: the heroes represent not only the district bureaucracy or the Russian bureaucracy, but also “man in general,” who easily forgets about his duties to people and God.
So, in the mayor we see an imperious hypocrite who firmly knows what his benefit is. Lyapkin-Tyapkin is a grumpy philosopher who loves to demonstrate his learning, but flaunts only his lazy, clumsy mind. Strawberry is a “earphone” and a flatterer, covering up his “sins” with other people’s “sins”. The postmaster, who “treats” officials with Khlestakov’s letter, is a fan of peeping “through the keyhole.”
Thus, in Gogol’s comedy “The Inspector General” we see a portrait of Russian bureaucracy. We see that these people, called to be a support for their Fatherland, are in fact its destroyers, destroyers. They care only about their own good, while forgetting about all moral and ethical laws.
Gogol shows that officials are victims of the terrible social system that has developed in Russia. Without noticing it themselves, they lose not only their professional qualifications, but also their human appearance - and turn into monsters, slaves of the corrupt system.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, in our time this comedy by Gogol is also extremely relevant. By and large, nothing has changed in our country - the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy has the same face - the same vices and shortcomings - as two hundred years ago. This is probably why “The Inspector General” is so popular in Russia and still does not leave theater stages.

My heart hurts when I see how people are mistaken. They talk about virtue, about God, and yet do nothing. From Gogol's letter to his mother. 1833 “The Inspector General” is the best Russian comedy. Both in reading and in stage performance she is always interesting. Therefore, it is generally difficult to talk about any failure of The Inspector General. But, on the other hand, it is difficult to create a real Gogol performance, to make those sitting in the hall laugh with bitter Gogol laughter. As a rule, something fundamental, deep, on which the entire meaning of the play is based, eludes the actor or the viewer. The premiere of the comedy, which took place on April 19, 1836 on the stage of the Alexandrinsky Theater in St. Petersburg, according to contemporaries, was a tremendous success. The mayor was played by Ivan Sosnitsky, Khlestakov Nikolai Dur - the best actors of that time. “The general attention of the audience, applause, sincere and unanimous laughter, the challenge of the author...,” recalled Prince Pyotr Andreevich Vyazemsky, “there was no lack of anything.” At the same time, even the most ardent admirers of Gogol did not fully understand the meaning and significance of the comedy; the majority of the public perceived it as a farce. Many saw the play as a caricature of Russian bureaucracy, and its author as a rebel. According to Sergei Timofeevich Aksakov, there were people who hated Gogol from the moment “The Inspector General” appeared. Thus, Count Fyodor Ivanovich Tolstoy (nicknamed the American) said in a crowded meeting that Gogol is “an enemy of Russia and that he should be sent in chains to Siberia.” Censor Alexander Vasilyevich Nikitenko wrote in his diary on April 28, 1836: “Gogol’s comedy “The Inspector General” caused a lot of noise... Many believe that the government is in vain to approve this play, in which it is so cruelly condemned.” Meanwhile, it is reliably known that the comedy was allowed to be staged (and therefore printed) in the highest resolution. Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich read the comedy in manuscript and approved it. On April 29, 1836, Gogol wrote to Mikhail Semenovich Shchepkin: “If it were not for the high intercession of the Sovereign, my play would never have been on stage, and there were already people trying to ban it.” The Emperor not only attended the premiere himself, but also ordered the ministers to watch The Inspector General. During the performance he clapped and laughed a lot, and when leaving the box he said: “Well, a play! Everyone got it, and I got it more than everyone else!” Gogol hoped to meet the support of the tsar and was not mistaken. Soon after staging the comedy, he answered his ill-wishers in “Theatrical Travel”: “The magnanimous government saw deeper than you with its high intelligence the purpose of the writer.” In striking contrast to the seemingly undoubted success of the play, Gogol’s bitter confession sounds: “The Inspector General” has been played - and my soul is so vague, so strange... I expected, I knew in advance how things would go, and for all that, the feeling is sad and annoying - a burden has enveloped me. My creation seemed disgusting to me, wild and as if not mine at all” (Excerpt from a letter written by the author shortly after the first presentation of “The Inspector General” to a certain writer). Gogol was, it seems, the only one who perceived the first production of The Government Inspector as a failure. What was the matter here that did not satisfy him? This was partly due to the discrepancy between the old vaudeville techniques in the design of the performance and the completely new spirit of the play, which did not fit into the framework of an ordinary comedy. Gogol persistently warned: “You need to be most careful not to fall into caricature. Nothing should be exaggerated or trivial even in the last roles” (Warning for those who would like to play “The Inspector General” properly). When creating the images of Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky, Gogol imagined them “in the skin” (as he put it) of Shchepkin and Vasily Ryazantsev, famous comic actors of that era. In the play, in his words, “it was just a caricature.” “Already before the start of the performance,” he shares his impressions, “when I saw them in costume, I gasped. These two little men, in their essence quite neat, plump, with decently smoothed hair, found themselves in some awkward, tall gray wigs, disheveled, unkempt, disheveled, with huge shirtfronts pulled out; but on stage they turned out to be such antics that it was simply unbearable.” Meanwhile, Gogol’s main goal is the complete naturalness of the characters and the verisimilitude of what is happening on stage. “The less an actor thinks about making people laugh and being funny, the more funny the role he takes will be revealed. The funny will be revealed by itself precisely in the seriousness with which each of the characters depicted in the comedy is busy with his work.” An example of such a “natural” manner of performance is the reading of “The Inspector General” by Gogol himself. Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev, who once attended such a reading, says: “Gogol... struck me with his extreme simplicity and restraint of manner, with some important and at the same time naive sincerity, which seemed not to care whether there were listeners here and what they thought. It seemed that Gogol was only concerned with how to delve into the subject, which was new to him, and how to more accurately convey his own impression. The effect was extraordinary - especially in comic, humorous places; it was impossible not to laugh—a good, healthy laugh; and the creator of all this fun continued, not embarrassed by the general gaiety and, as if inwardly marveling at it, to immerse himself more and more in the matter itself - and only occasionally, on the lips and around the eyes, the master’s sly smile trembled slightly. With what bewilderment, with what amazement Gogol uttered the famous phrase of the Governor about two rats (at the very beginning of the play): “They came, sniffed and went away!” “He even looked around us slowly, as if asking for an explanation for such an amazing incident. It was only then that I realized how completely incorrect, superficial, and with what desire only to quickly make people laugh, “The Inspector General” is usually played on stage. While working on the play, Gogol mercilessly expelled from it all elements of external comedy. Gogol's laughter is the contrast between what the hero says and how he says it. In the first act, Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky are arguing about which of them should start telling the news. This comic scene should not only make you laugh. For the heroes, it is very important who exactly tells the story. Their whole life consists of spreading all kinds of gossip and rumors. And suddenly the two received the same news. This is a tragedy. They are arguing over a matter. Bobchinsky must be told everything, nothing should be missed. Otherwise, Dobchinsky will complement. Why, let us ask again, was Gogol dissatisfied with the premiere? The main reason was not even the farcical nature of the performance - the desire to make the audience laugh, but the fact that with the caricatured manner of the actors' performance, those sitting in the audience perceived what was happening on stage without applying it to themselves, since the characters were exaggeratedly funny. Meanwhile, Gogol’s plan was designed for precisely the opposite perception: to involve the viewer in the performance, to make them feel that the city depicted in the comedy exists not just somewhere, but to one degree or another in any place in Russia, and the passions and vices of officials exist in the soul of each of us. Gogol appeals to everyone. This is the enormous social significance of The Inspector General. This is the meaning of the famous remark of the Governor: “Why are you laughing? You’re laughing at yourself!” - facing the hall (precisely the hall, since no one is laughing on stage at this time). The epigraph also indicates this: “There is no point in blaming the mirror if your face is crooked.” In a kind of theatrical commentary on the play - “Theatrical Travel” and “The Inspector General’s Denouement” - where the audience and actors discuss the comedy, Gogol seems to be striving to destroy the invisible wall separating the stage and the auditorium. Regarding the epigraph that appeared later, in the 1842 edition, let’s say that this popular proverb means the Gospel by a mirror, which Gogol’s contemporaries, who spiritually belonged to the Orthodox Church, knew very well and could even support the understanding of this proverb, for example, with Krylov’s famous fable “ Mirror and Monkey." Here the Monkey, looking in the mirror, turns to the Bear: “Look,” he says, “my dear godfather!” What kind of face is that there? What antics and jumps she has! I would hang myself with melancholy if I were even a little like her. But, admit it, there are five or six of my gossips who are such crooks; I can even count them on my fingers.” - “Why should godmothers work? Isn’t it better to turn on yourself, godmother?” - Mishka answered her. But Mishenka’s advice was wasted. Bishop Varnava (Belyaev), in his major work “Fundamentals of the Art of Holiness” (1920s), connects the meaning of this fable with attacks on the Gospel, and this was exactly the meaning (among others) for Krylov. The spiritual idea of ​​the Gospel as a mirror has long and firmly existed in the Orthodox consciousness. So, for example, Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk, one of Gogol’s favorite writers, whose works he re-read more than once, says: “Christians! As a mirror is to the sons of this age, so may the Gospel and the immaculate life of Christ be for us. They look in the mirrors and correct their bodies and cleanse the blemishes on their faces... Let us then offer this clean mirror before the eyes of our souls and look into it: is our life consistent with the life of Christ?” The holy righteous John of Kronstadt, in his diaries published under the title “My Life in Christ,” remarks to “those who do not read the Gospels”: “Are you pure, holy and perfect, without reading the Gospel, and you do not need to look into this mirror? Or are you very ugly mentally and are afraid of your ugliness?..” In Gogol’s extracts from the holy fathers and teachers of the Church we find the entry: “Those who want to cleanse and whiten their face usually look in the mirror. Christian! Your mirror is the Lord's commandments; if you put them in front of you and look at them closely, they will reveal to you all the spots, all the blackness, all the ugliness of your soul.” It is noteworthy that Gogol also addressed this image in his letters. So, on December 20 (NS), 1844, he wrote to Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin from Frankfurt: “... always keep a book on your table that would serve as a spiritual mirror for you”; and a week later - to Alexandra Osipovna Smirnova: “Look also at yourself. For this, have a spiritual mirror on your table, that is, some book into which your soul can look...” As you know, a Christian will be judged according to the Gospel law. In “The Inspector General’s Denouement,” Gogol puts into the mouth of the First Comic Actor the idea that on the day of the Last Judgment we will all find ourselves with “crooked faces”: “... let us look at ourselves at least somewhat through the eyes of the One who will call to a confrontation all the people before whom and the best of us, don’t forget this, will lower their eyes to the ground in shame, and let’s see if any of us then has the courage to ask: “Is my face crooked?” " It is known that Gogol never parted with the Gospel. “You can’t imagine anything higher than what is already in the Gospel,” he said. “How many times has humanity recoiled from it and how many times has it turned back?” It is impossible, of course, to create any other “mirror” similar to the Gospel. But just as every Christian is obliged to live according to the Gospel commandments, imitating Christ (to the best of his human strength), so Gogol the playwright, to the best of his talent, arranges his mirror on the stage. Any of the spectators could turn out to be Krylov's Monkey. However, it turned out that this viewer saw “five or six gossips,” but not himself. Gogol later spoke about the same thing in his address to readers in “Dead Souls”: “You will even laugh heartily at Chichikov, maybe even praise the author... And you will add: “But I must agree, there are strange and funny people in some provinces , and quite a few scoundrels at that!” And which of you, full of Christian humility... will deepen this difficult question into your own soul: “Isn’t there some part of Chichikov in me too?” Yes, no matter how it is!” The Mayor’s remark, which appeared, like the epigraph, in 1842, also has its parallel in “Dead Souls.” In the tenth chapter, reflecting on the mistakes and delusions of all mankind, the author notes: “The current generation now sees everything clearly, marvels at the errors, laughs at the foolishness of its ancestors, not in vain that... a piercing finger is directed from everywhere at it, at the current generation; but the current generation laughs and arrogantly, proudly begins a series of new errors, which posterity will also laugh at later.” In The Inspector General, Gogol made his contemporaries laugh at what they were accustomed to and what they no longer noticed. But most importantly, they are accustomed to carelessness in spiritual life. The audience laughs at the heroes who die spiritually. Let us turn to examples from the play that show such death. The mayor sincerely believes that “there is no person who does not have some sins behind him. This is already arranged this way by God Himself, and the Voltaireans are in vain speaking against it.” To which Judge Ammos Fedorovich Lyapkin-Tyapkin objects: “What do you think, Anton Antonovich, are sins? Sins are different from sins. I tell everyone openly that I take bribes, but with what bribes? Greyhound puppies. This is a completely different matter." The judge is sure that bribes with greyhound puppies cannot be considered bribes, “but, for example, if someone’s fur coat costs five hundred rubles, and his wife’s shawl...” Here the Governor, taking the hint, retorts: “But you don’t believe in God; you never go to church; but at least I am firm in my faith and go to church every Sunday. And you... Oh, I know you: if you start talking about the creation of the world, your hair will just stand on end.” To which Ammos Fedorovich replies: “But I got there on my own, with my own mind.” Gogol is the best commentator on his works. In “Pre-Notice...” he notes about the Judge: “He is not even a hunter to do lies, but he has a great passion for hunting with dogs... He is busy with himself and his mind, and is an atheist only because in this field there is room for him to prove himself.” The mayor believes that he is firm in his faith; The more sincerely he expresses it, the funnier it is. Going to Khlestakov, he gives orders to his subordinates: “Yes, if they ask why a church was not built at a charitable institution, for which the amount was allocated five years ago, then do not forget to say that it began to be built, but burned down. I submitted a report about this. Otherwise, perhaps someone, having forgotten himself, will foolishly say that it never began.” Explaining the image of the Mayor, Gogol says: “He feels that he is sinful; he goes to church, he even thinks that he is firm in his faith, he even thinks about repenting someday later. But the temptation of everything that floats into one’s hands is great, and the blessings of life are tempting, and to grab everything without missing anything has become, as it were, just a habit for him.” And so, going to the imaginary auditor, the Mayor laments: “I’m a sinner, a sinner in many ways... Just grant, God, that I get away with it as soon as possible, and then I’ll put a candle that no one has ever put: for every beast of a merchant I’ll put deliver three pounds of wax.” We see that the Mayor has fallen, as it were, into a vicious circle of his sinfulness: in his repentant thoughts, the sprouts of new sins appear unnoticed by him (the merchants will pay for the candle, not he). Just as the Governor does not feel the sinfulness of his actions, because he does everything according to an old habit, so do the other heroes of The Inspector General. For example, postmaster Ivan Kuzmich Shpekin opens other people’s letters solely out of curiosity: “I love to know what’s new in the world. Let me tell you, this is a most interesting read. You will read another letter with pleasure - this is how various passages are described... and what edification... better than in the Moskovskiye Vedomosti! The judge remarks to him: “Look, you will get it someday for this.” Shpekin exclaims with childish naivety: “Oh, priests!” It doesn’t even occur to him that he is doing something illegal. Gogol explains: “The postmaster is a simple-minded person to the point of naivety, looking at life as a collection of interesting stories to pass the time, which he reads in printed letters. There’s nothing left for the actor to do except be as simple-minded as possible.” Innocence, curiosity, the habitual practice of every untruth, the free-thinking of officials with the appearance of Khlestakov, that is, according to their concepts, an auditor, are suddenly replaced for a moment by an attack of fear inherent in criminals expecting severe retribution. The same inveterate freethinker Ammos Fedorovich Lyapkin-Tyapkin, standing before Khlestakov, says to himself: “Lord God! I don't know where I'm sitting. Like hot coals beneath you.” And the Mayor, in the same position, asks for mercy: “Do not destroy! Wife, small children... don’t make a person unhappy.” And further: “Because of inexperience, by God because of inexperience. Insufficient wealth... Judge for yourself: the government salary is not enough even for tea and sugar.” Gogol was especially dissatisfied with the way Khlestakov was played. “The main role was gone,” he writes, “so I thought. Dur didn’t understand one bit what Khlestakov was.” Khlestakov is not just a dreamer. He himself does not know what he is saying and what he will say in the next moment. It’s as if someone sitting in him speaks for him, tempting through him all the characters in the play. Isn't this the father of lies himself, that is, the devil? It seems that Gogol had this exactly in mind. The heroes of the play, in response to these temptations, without noticing it themselves, reveal themselves in all their sinfulness. Tempted by the evil one, Khlestakov himself seems to acquire the features of a demon. On May 16 (New Style), 1844, Gogol wrote to Aksakov: “All this excitement and mental struggle of yours is nothing more than the work of our common friend, known to everyone, namely the devil. But don’t lose sight of the fact that he’s a clicker and is all about cheating... You hit this beast in the face and don’t be embarrassed by anything. He is like a petty official who has entered the city as if for an investigation. It will throw dust at everyone, scatter it, and shout. You just have to chicken out a little and move back - then he will go brave. And as soon as you step on him, he will tuck his tail between his legs. We ourselves make a giant out of him... A proverb does not come in vain, but a proverb says: The devil boasted of taking possession of the whole world, but God did not give him power over a pig.” This is how Ivan Aleksandrovich Khlestakov is seen in this description. The characters in the play feel a sense of fear more and more, as evidenced by the lines and the author's remarks (stretching out and trembling with their whole bodies). This fear seems to spread to the hall. After all, in the hall sat those who were afraid of auditors, but only real ones - the sovereign's. Meanwhile, Gogol, knowing this, called on them, in general Christians, to the fear of God, to the cleansing of their conscience, which will not be afraid of any auditor, but even the Last Judgment. Officials, as if blinded by fear, cannot see Khlestakov’s real face. They always look at their feet, and not at the sky. In “The Rule of Living in the World,” Gogol explained the reason for such fear: “... everything is exaggerated in our eyes and frightens us. Because we keep our eyes down and don’t want to raise them up. For if they were raised up for a few minutes, they would see above all only God and the light emanating from Him, illuminating everything in its present form, and then they themselves would laugh at their own blindness.” The main idea of ​​“The Inspector General” is the idea of ​​inevitable spiritual retribution, which every person should expect. Gogol, dissatisfied with the way “The Inspector General” was staged and how the audience perceived it, tried to reveal this idea in “The Inspector General’s Denouement.” “Take a close look at this city that is depicted in the play! - says Gogol through the mouth of the First Comic Actor. - Everyone agrees that there is no such city in all of Russia... Well, what if this is our soulful city and it sits with each of us?.. Whatever you say, the inspector who waits for us at the door of the coffin is terrible . As if you don’t know who this auditor is? Why pretend? This auditor is our awakened conscience, which will force us to suddenly and at once look at ourselves with all our eyes. Nothing can be hidden from this inspector, because he was sent by the Named Supreme Command and will be announced when it is no longer possible to take a step back. Suddenly, such a monster will be revealed to you, within you, that your hair will stand up in horror. It’s better to revise everything that is in us at the beginning of life, and not at the end of it.” We are talking here about the Last Judgment. And now the final scene of “The Inspector General” becomes clear. It is a symbolic picture of the Last Judgment. The appearance of the gendarme, announcing the arrival from St. Petersburg “by personal order” of the current inspector, has a stunning effect on the heroes of the play. Gogol’s remark: “The spoken words strike everyone like thunder. The sound of amazement unanimously emanates from the ladies' lips; the whole group, having suddenly changed their position, remains petrified.” Gogol attached exceptional importance to this “silent scene”. He defines its duration as one and a half minutes, and in “Excerpt from a Letter...” he even talks about two or three minutes of “petrification” of the heroes. Each of the characters, with their whole figure, seems to show that he can no longer change anything in his fate, even lift a finger - he is in front of the Judge. According to Gogol’s plan, at this moment there should be silence in the hall of general reflection. In “Dénouement,” Gogol did not offer a new interpretation of “The Inspector General,” as is sometimes thought, but only revealed its main idea. On November 2 (NS), 1846, he wrote to Ivan Sosnitsky from Nice: “Pay your attention to the last scene of The Inspector General.” Think about it, think about it again. From the final play, “The Inspector's Denouement,” you will understand why I am so concerned about this last scene and why it is so important to me that it has its full effect. I am sure that you will look at The Inspector General with different eyes after this conclusion, which, for many reasons, could not be given to me then and is only possible now.” From these words it follows that “Dénouement” did not give new meaning to the “silent scene”, but only clarified its meaning. Indeed, at the time of the creation of “The Inspector General” in “Petersburg Notes of 1836” Gogol’s lines appear that directly precede “The Denouement”: “Lent is calm and formidable. A voice seems to be heard: “Stop, Christian; look back at your life.” However, Gogol’s interpretation of the district city as a “spiritual city”, and its officials as the embodiment of the passions rampant in it, made in the spirit of the patristic tradition, came as a surprise to his contemporaries and caused rejection. Shchepkin, who was destined for the role of the First Comic Actor, after reading the new play, refused to play in it. On May 22, 1847, he wrote to Gogol: “... until now I have studied all the heroes of The Inspector General as living people... Don’t give me any hints that these are not officials, but our passions; no, I don’t want such an alteration: these are people, real living people, among whom I grew up and almost grew old... You from the whole world gathered several people into one collective place, into one group, with these people at the age of ten I became completely related, and you want to take them away from me.” Meanwhile, Gogol’s intention did not at all imply making a kind of allegory out of “living people” - full-blooded artistic images. The author only revealed the main idea of ​​the comedy, without which it looks like a simple denunciation of morals. “The Inspector General” is “The Inspector General,” Gogol answered Shchepkin around July 10 (New Style), 1847, “and applying it to oneself is an indispensable thing that every viewer must do from everything, even not “The Inspector General,” but which it would be more appropriate for him to do about “The Inspector General.” In the second edition of the ending of “Dénouement,” Gogol clarifies his thought. Here the First Comic Actor (Michal Mihalcz), in response to the doubts of one of the characters that his proposed interpretation of the play corresponds to the author’s intention, says: “The author, even if he had this idea, would have acted badly if he had revealed it clearly . The comedy would then turn into an allegory, and some pale moralizing sermon could emerge from it. No, his job was to depict simply the horror of material unrest not in an ideal city, but in the one on earth... His job was to depict this darkness so strongly that everyone felt that they needed to fight with it, so that it would throw the viewer into awe - and horror the riots would have penetrated him through and through. That's what he should have done. And this is our job to give a moral lesson. We, thank God, are not children. I thought about what kind of moral lesson I could draw for myself, and I attacked the one that I have now told you.” And further, to the questions of those around him, why was he the only one who brought out a moral teaching that was so remote in their terms, Michal Mihalch answers: “First of all, why do you know that I was the only one who brought out this moral teaching? And secondly, why do you consider it distant? I think, on the contrary, our own soul is closest to us. I had my soul in my mind then, I was thinking about myself, and that’s why I came up with this moral teaching. If others had had this in mind before themselves, they would probably have drawn the same moral teaching that I have drawn. But does each of us approach a writer’s work, like a bee to a flower, in order to extract from it what we need? No, we are looking for moral teaching in everything for others, and not for ourselves. We are ready to advocate and protect the entire society, carefully valuing the morality of others and forgetting about our own. After all, we love to laugh at others, not at ourselves...” It is impossible not to notice that these reflections of the main character of “The Denouement” not only do not contradict the content of “The Inspector General,” but correspond exactly to it. Moreover, the thoughts expressed here are organic to Gogol’s entire work. The idea of ​​the Last Judgment should have been developed in “Dead Souls”, since it follows from the content of the poem. One of the rough sketches (obviously for the third volume) directly paints a picture of the Last Judgment: “Why didn’t you remember about Me, that I am looking at you, that I am yours? Why did you expect rewards and attention and encouragement from people, and not from Me? What business would it then be for you to pay attention to how an earthly landowner will spend your money when you have a Heavenly Landowner? Who knows what would have ended if you had reached the end without being afraid? You would surprise with the greatness of your character, you would finally take over and force amazement; you would leave your name as an eternal monument to valor, and streams of tears would fall, streams of tears would fall for you, and like a whirlwind you would scatter the flame of goodness in the hearts.” The manager lowered his head, ashamed, and did not know where to go. And after him, many officials and noble, wonderful people, who began to serve and then abandoned their careers, sadly hung their heads.” In conclusion, we will say that the theme of the Last Judgment permeates all of Gogol’s work, which corresponded to his spiritual life, his desire for monasticism. And a monk is a person who has left the world, preparing himself to answer at the Judgment of Christ. Gogol remained a writer and, as it were, a monk in the world. In his writings he shows that it is not man who is bad, but the sin operating within him. Orthodox monasticism has always maintained the same thing. Gogol believed in the power of the artistic word, which can show the path to moral rebirth. It was with this faith that he created The Inspector General.

“Gogol believed in miracles, in mysterious events”

Surrounded by controversy during his lifetime, Gogol’s work still causes controversy among literary scholars, historians, philosophers, and artists. In the anniversary year of 2009, the Complete Collection of Gogol's Works and Letters was published in seventeen volumes, unprecedented in volume. It includes all of Gogol’s artistic, critical, journalistic and spiritual-moral works, as well as notebooks, materials on folklore, ethnography, extracts from the works of the holy fathers, and extensive correspondence, including responses from recipients. We talked about Gogol’s legacy, the mysteries of his personality and creativity with one of the editors of the publication, professor at Moscow State University, chairman of the Gogol Commission at the Scientific Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences “History of World Culture” Vladimir Voropaev. culture: How did you manage to implement this project - a 17-volume collection of works and letters? Voropaev: On the occasion of the writer’s 200th anniversary, it turned out that the complete collection had never been published: the last fourteen-volume work was published in the early 50s of the last century, and naturally, Soviet censorship did not miss much then. I went to various authorities, but no one took up this matter - after all, the project is not commercial. Igor Zolotussky, the late Savva Yamshchikov - members of the Committee for the celebration of Gogol’s 200th anniversary - addressed our ministers of culture, first to Alexander Sokolov, then to Alexander Avdeev. But there was no point. Finally, Hieromonk Simeon (Tomachinsky), director of the publishing house of the Sretensky Monastery, candidate of philological sciences - by the way, from my university Gogol seminar - got down to business. He acted as coordinator of a joint Russian-Ukrainian project. There were also sponsors in Ukraine. Voropaev: The publication was published with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' and His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv and All Ukraine. The blessing came when I was touring Gogol’s places: Nezhin, Poltava, Mirgorod, Vasilievka... Igor Vinogradov, my student, now a famous literary scholar, Doctor of Philology, and I got down to business. We slept little, worked a lot... A significant amount of texts were printed from manuscripts. Among them are “Taras Bulba”, “Old World Landowners”, individual chapters of “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends”, rough drafts of the second volume of “Dead Souls” and much more. For the first time, folk songs (Russian and Little Russian) collected by Gogol were printed from autographs. Our publication is not academic (there is no collection of variants from different editions), but it is complete. Moreover, we strived for maximum completeness: not only all editions of Gogol’s works were taken into account, but even receipts to bankers, homeowners, album entries, dedicatory inscriptions on books, marks and notes on the Bible that belonged to Gogol, and so on and so forth. All volumes are accompanied by commentaries and accompanying articles. Illustrated edition. Gogol's herbarium was printed here for the first time. Few people know that Nikolai Vasilyevich was fond of botany. Here, for example, is his note in the margins: “Gorse. When a mad dog bites." culture: No matter how much we study Gogol, ideas about him seem one-sided. Some consider him a mystic, others - a writer of everyday life. Who do you think he really is? Voropaev: Gogol does not fit into any of the definitions, he is the whole Universe. Was he a mystic? This question is asked often. Gogol was a mystic in the Orthodox sense of the word. He believed in miracles - without this there is no faith. But miracles are not fabulous, not fantastic stories, but mysterious and great events created by God. However, Gogol was not a mystic in the sense of attributing unjustified spiritual merits to himself, one to whom it seemed as if God communicated with him every minute, that he had prophetic dreams, visions... There is not a trace of mystical exaltation in any of Gogol’s letters. By his own admission, many misunderstandings arose because he began to talk too early about what was clear to himself and which he was unable to express in dark speeches... culture: But what about ghouls, devils, “Viy” and “Terrible Revenge” "? Voropaev: Yes, in “Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka” there is devilry, but even here a different meaning emerges. Remember, when the blacksmith Vakula runs to drown himself, who is behind him? Demon. He is happy to push a person to do the opposite. All of Gogol's early work is spiritually edifying: it is not just a collection of funny stories in the folk spirit, but also an extensive religious teaching in which there is a struggle between good and evil and good invariably wins, and sinners are punished. culture: Didn’t Gogol like to remember the evil one? “The devil knows what it is!” - one of the most frequent sayings among his heroes. Voropaev: Yes, Gogol’s heroes often curse. I remember once, many years ago, Bishop Pitirim, who at that time headed the Publishing Department of the Moscow Patriarchate, in a conversation about Gogol, remarked that he had the ability to carelessly flirt with evil spirits and that he, apparently, did not fully feel the danger of such a game. Be that as it may, Gogol moved forward and did not stop in his spiritual development. In “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends,” one of the chapters is called: “The Christian Moves Forward.” culture: But, probably, this is also simply a means of speech characterization of the heroes? Voropaev: Of course, that too. culture: Gogol received many blows during his lifetime for creating ideal heroes and composing certain utopias. He was blamed for “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends,” for “The Denouement of The Inspector General,” for the second volume of “Dead Souls.” Voropaev: In my opinion, Gogol did not create any utopias. As for the chapters of the second volume of “Dead Souls” that have come down to us, there are no “ideal” heroes in them. And Gogol did not at all intend to make Chichikov a “virtuous person.” In all likelihood, the author wanted to lead his hero through the crucible of trials and suffering, as a result of which he had to realize the unrighteousness of his path. With this internal upheaval, from which Chichikov would emerge as a different person, Dead Souls should, apparently, have ended. By the way, even Nabokov, being an opponent of Gogol’s Christian ideas, believed that the heroes of the second volume were artistically in no way inferior to the heroes of the first. So Chernyshevsky, who also never shared Gogol’s beliefs, said, for example, that the governor-general’s speech from the second volume is the best of all that Gogol wrote. “Selected passages from correspondence with friends” is a separate topic. What is the reason for the public's rejection of them? A man in a tailcoat, not a cassock, spoke about spiritual issues! Gogol seemed to have deceived the expectations of his former readers. He expressed his views on faith, the Church, royal power, Russia, and the word of the writer. Gogol pointed out two conditions without which no good transformations in Russia are possible. First of all, you need to love Russia. But what does it mean to love Russia? The writer explains: anyone who wants to truly honestly serve Russia needs to have a lot of love for her, which would absorb all other feelings - he needs to have a lot of love for people in general and become a true Christian in the entire sense of the word. Secondly, no transformations can be made without the blessing of the Church. Note that this was a secular writer speaking. All issues of life - everyday, social, state, literary - have a religious and moral meaning for Gogol. culture: Meanwhile, in “The Inspector General” or in “Dead Souls” such a mercilessly critical, murderously negative picture of Russian life is given that, if Gogol were our contemporary, he would be accused of “chernukha.” Voropaev: This is only the upper layer. Gogol, for example, was very dissatisfied with the production of The Inspector General on stage. He did not like the caricatured roles played, the desire of the actors to make the audience laugh at any cost. He wanted people to look not at monsters, but to see themselves, as in a mirror. Gogol explained the deep moral and didactic meaning of the comedy in “The Denouement of The Inspector General”: “... the inspector who waits for us at the door of the coffin is terrible.” The main idea of ​​“The Inspector General” is the idea of ​​the inevitable spiritual retribution that awaits every person. This idea is also expressed in the final “silent scene,” which is an allegorical picture of the Last Judgment. Each of the characters, with their whole figure, seems to show that he can no longer change anything in his fate, even lift a finger - he is before the Judge. According to Gogol’s plan, at this moment there should be silence in the hall of general reflection. Gogol’s main creation, the poem “Dead Souls,” has the same deep subtext. On the external level, it represents a series of satirical and everyday characters and situations, while in its final form the book was supposed to show the path to the revival of the soul of fallen man. The spiritual meaning of the plan was revealed by Gogol in his suicide note: “Be not dead, but living souls. There is no other door except that indicated by Jesus Christ...” culture: In literary criticism, Gogol’s so-called depressions have been discussed many times. Some suspected that the writer was sick with schizophrenia, others were inclined to think that his mental structure was too delicate and vulnerable. Voropaev: There is a lot of indisputable evidence that the writer considered his physical and mental ailments to be sent from above and accepted them with humility. It is known that Gogol died in a state of spiritual enlightenment and his last words, spoken in full consciousness, were: “How sweet it is to die!” culture: But what about the fact that he hasn’t gone to bed in recent days? They said that since childhood he had been afraid of the Last Judgment, and during the period of his dying illness this fear intensified. Voropaev: Do you mean that he slept while sitting in a chair? There is, I think, another reason. Not the one that Gogol sat in armchairs for fear of dying in bed. Rather, it was in some way an imitation of the monastic custom of spending the night’s rest not on a bed, but on a chair, that is, generally sitting. Gogol did this before, for example, when he was in Rome. Contemporary evidence of this has been preserved. culture: And yet there is something mystical even in Gogol’s “life after death.” All these stories with burial alive, with the skull disappearing from the coffin... What do you think about this? Voropaev: Since 1931, when the writer’s remains were transferred to the Novodevichy cemetery, the most incredible rumors began to spread. For example, that Gogol was buried alive. This rumor is partly based on words from Gogol’s will, published in the book “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends”: “I bequeath my body not to be buried until obvious signs of decomposition appear. I mention this because even during the illness itself, moments of vital numbness came over me, my heart and pulse stopped beating...” The fears were not justified. After his death, the writer’s body was examined by experienced doctors who could not make such a gross mistake. In addition, Gogol's funeral service was held. Meanwhile, there is not a single case known of a person returning to life after a church funeral. This is impossible for spiritual reasons. For those who find this argument unconvincing, one can cite the testimony of the sculptor Nikolai Ramazanov, who removed the death mask from Gogol. In general, there is a lot of strange and unclear things in this story with the reburial of the writer’s remains. There is not even complete certainty that the grave was found and Gogol’s ashes were actually transferred to the cemetery of the Novodevichy Convent. Whether this is so, we do not know. But why engage in grave digging?

“Gogol can do anything, including preaching.”

Part 1

Interview with the Chairman of the Gogol Commission of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor of Moscow State University Vladimir Alekseevich Voropaev.

A chivalric novel about a religious war

— Vladimir Alekseevich, what work of Gogol do you read when you want to relax, for the soul? - None. - And at the moment? - Now there are so many worries... - What is your favorite work by Gogol? “Everything in Gogol is excellent, everything is classic, there is no one favorite thing. —What was Gogol’s first work? — In my opinion, the story “The Overcoat.” There was a Soviet film, I watched it several times. And when the words were uttered: “But the overcoat is mine!”, I climbed under the blanket and was very worried. I always felt very sorry for Akaki Akakievich. — The film “Taras Bulba” was recently released. How do you rate it? — More positive than even neutral. The film is useful. True, it is made in the Hollywood manner, it is so colorful, and it seems to me that it arouses interest in Gogol, although there are plot points that Gogol does not have. And it is clear why they were made by the director: to explain the motives for the actions of Taras Bulba and the war in general. Gogol describes a religious war. And here the director is trying to give some personal character to the actions and actions of many Cossacks, in particular Taras Bulba. If you remember, Gogol does not have any moment associated with the death of his wife. And here the death of his wife, killed by the Poles, is shown, and Taras Bulba seems to have another motive for revenge. - Yes, one can hardly believe that the Cossacks, people for whom fighting was a profession, fleeing from the Poles, carried with them tens of kilometers the corpse of a woman... - Yes, this moment is implausible and does not give anything for understanding. Or, for example, the storyline of the love of Andriy, the son of Taras Bulba, for a beautiful Polish woman. Gogol describes this love in a completely different way: one of the sources of this episode is the book of Esther (Gogol knew the Bible well), and the relationship between the characters is interpreted precisely as a temptation. And in the film they have a child, it turns out that this is already love, a blessing from God. But for Gogol it is still temptation, seduction and betrayal, betrayal. — Your anniversary report says that “Taras Bulba” is in some way a chivalric novel. And where is the ideal in it, for the sake of which, apparently, the director made the film, for the sake of which Gogol wrote this work? — Many people are confused by the Cossacks. They are interpreted as hawk moths, drunkards, murderers. With Gogol, of course, everything is different. The feat of the Cossacks lies in the fact that they give up their souls for their friends, they fight for the faith and for the Motherland, for the Fatherland. And this is the holiness of their feat, although they are absolutely not ideal heroes. And Taras Bulba is not the best representative of the Cossacks, but its most characteristic, typical representative. He is a sinner like everyone else, but he gives his life and soul for his friends. This is both his feat and the feat of other Cossacks. In general, the central question that Gogol raised in “Taras Bulba” - this is clear from his draft notes and extracts from the Holy Fathers of the Church - is it possible to defend the shrines of faith by force of arms? Remember Ivan Ilyin, his famous book “On Resistance to Evil by Force”? This is a very important question, a historical, philosophical, theological question. It is this that Gogol raises and reflects on. Extracts from the works of the Holy Fathers also speak about this. Some say that it is impermissible for a Christian to kill, that the sword is, first of all, a spiritual sword, it is a vigil, a fast. Other extracts say that although it is impermissible for a Christian to kill, killing on the battlefield is permissible and worthy of praise. Gogol follows this path. In the book “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends,” he gives the example of St. Sergius of Radonezh, who blessed the monks for the battle with the Tatars. They took swords into their hands, as Gogol writes, which were disgusting to a Christian. For Bulba, this issue was resolved. The duty of a Christian is to defend his homeland, family, faith. Christianity has nothing to do with non-resistance to evil through violence; this is Tolstoyism. And Gogol was a man of deep faith. Not being a clergyman, he embarked on the path of preaching, spiritual reflection, and correctly gave answers to all these reproaches. Gogol wrote from the depths of a believing heart. An artist like Gogol can do anything, I think. And preach too.

Teacher and preacher or crazy?..

— You said about Gogol’s preaching. After all, many clergy of his time, for example, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Father Matthew, with whom Gogol communicated a lot, had a negative attitude towards his role as a teacher and preacher. - You know, this question is quite complicated. The fact is that Gogol had no fundamental differences with St. Ignatius. Both of them brought the light of Christ to the world. Saint Ignatius has a rather critical review: he claims that Gogol’s book “Selected Passages...” publishes both light and darkness, and advises his children to read first of all the Holy Fathers, and not Gogol. But Gogol said that he wrote his book for those who do not go to Church, for those people who are still on this path. And for him, art is an invisible step towards Christianity. He said that if after reading a book a person picks up the Gospel, this is the highest meaning of his work. This is his goal as a writer. And in this sense, he achieved a lot. Many non-church people came to Orthodoxy through Gogol’s book. - Is there such evidence? - Of course, and this is indisputable. For example, Kliment Zederholm, a friend of Konstantin Leontyev. He was the son of a German pastor and he himself told Optina Pustyn novice Leonid Kaverin, who later became archimandrite, rector of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, that it was Gogol’s book that led him to Orthodoxy after he read it for the first time. By the way, in my latest book “Nikolai Gogol: An Experience of Spiritual Biography” I give examples of such a beneficial influence of Gogol’s book. It worked, but on a few, of course. — It is known that contemporaries who read “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends” did not understand this book and did not accept it; Gogol’s advice on how to govern Russia, how to love it, what men, women, priests, etc., should do, caused them sharp rejection... What, in your opinion, was the main reason? “They didn’t accept it, firstly, because they didn’t expect it from Gogol. They expected works of art from him, but he set out on the path of spiritual preaching. A man not in a cassock suddenly began to preach - this seemed strange to many. You probably know that after his book many called Gogol crazy, and Belinsky directly stated that he needed to rush to get treatment. And many others thought he was simply crazy. Read, for example, the memoirs of Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev. He writes that when he went to Gogol with the actor Shchepkin, Gogol’s friend (this was in the fall of 1851, just a few months before Gogol’s death), they went to him as if he were a person who had something crazy in his head. All of Moscow had this opinion about him. - It turns out that even his friends did not understand him... Is this a consequence of the fact that Gogol did not write what was expected of him, or a rejection of his religious point of view? “I think that Gogol was a little ahead of his time, as befits a brilliant writer. When Leo Tolstoy read “Selected Places...” in 1847, he was terribly annoyed. 40 years later, in 1887, he re-read this book, included individual chapters in his collection of selected thoughts of great people and wrote to one of his correspondents about Gogol that our Pascal had been hidden for forty years and vulgar people did not understand anything. And that he is trying with all his might to say what Gogol said before him. Tolstoy called it the great slandered book. This is such a complete reversal. Blok wrote in one of his articles that we are again standing in front of this book, and it will soon go into life and into business.

What does it mean to “love Russia”?

This book is now perhaps more modern and relevant for us than for Gogol’s contemporaries. We have such a philosopher - Viktor Nikolaevich Trostnikov, a famous church publicist. He once wrote that his contemporaries considered Gogol crazy, but now we are beginning to understand that Gogol was one of the few sane people of his time. And his book is now much more relevant than what, for example, Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote. He is also a very talented writer, a classicist, one might say, and a fan of Russia. Remember his brochure “How can we organize Russia”? It was published in millions of copies. And what? Where are these ideas? Has any of what Solzhenitsyn proposed come true? And Gogol is modern and relevant. In his last book, he pointed out two conditions without which no good transformations in Russia are possible. First of all, you need to love Russia. And secondly, one should also not do anything without the blessing of the Church. “But Belinsky also loved Russia. - Probably in my own way. But what does it mean to “love Russia”? Gogol has an answer to this question. He said: “Whoever wants to truly honestly serve Russia needs to have a lot of love for her, which would absorb all other feelings; he needs to have a lot of love for people in general and become a true Christian in the entire sense of the word.” All revolutionaries hated historical Russia, Holy Rus'. For Gogol, patriotism has a spiritual meaning. He even wrote to one of his friends, Count Alexander Petrovich Tolstoy, that one should live not in Russia, but in God. If we live according to God’s commandments, then the Lord will take care of Russia, and everything will be fine. Very correct words, precise. Many of our patriots do not understand this. And in the book “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends” this is frankly stated. This is what first of all irritated Belinsky and others. For Gogol, Christianity is higher than civilization. Many of our saints wrote about the departure of educated society from the Church, about the decline of the religious spirit among the people: Theophan the Recluse and Ignatius Brianchaninov. This is the most important topic. And of the secular writers, Gogol spoke about this with all the power of his words. He saw what awaited Russia and foresaw a terrible catastrophe. — Gogol was probably the first teacher in Russian literature. After him there were Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Then a well-known formula arose that a poet in Russia is more than a poet... This teaching function, which Russian literature has taken upon itself, is characteristic of literature, do you think? Didn't it ultimately lead to spiritual collapse, to revolution? - Literature has nothing to do with it. Although Konstantin Leontyev wrote that Gogol was harmful, albeit unconsciously. Remember, as in Lenin: the Decembrists woke up Herzen. Who woke up Belinsky? Gogol, probably.

Part 2

Who, if not the Chairman of the Gogol Commission of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor of Moscow State University Vladimir Alekseevich Voropaev, can tell whether “we all really came out of Gogol’s “Overcoat”,” where Gogol’s head disappeared in 1931, and why it is useful for teenagers to read Gogol’s reflections on the Liturgy.

A writer must teach if he is a writer

- A writer must teach if he is a writer - It turns out that our writers took on this burden - to teach everyone - so they taught... - You know, in general, it depends on who will teach. When Gogol was reproached for being a teacher, he replied that he was not yet a monk, but a writer. And a writer must teach—teach to understand life. The purpose of art is to serve as an invisible step towards Christianity. According to Gogol, literature should fulfill the same task as the works of spiritual writers - to enlighten the soul, lead it to perfection. And this is for him the only justification of art. - But here a problem may arise: our ideas about the path to perfection are somewhat different... - Gogol has the correct criteria for perfection, spiritual ones. He said that if anyone even thinks about becoming better, then he will certainly meet Christ, having seen clearly as day that without Christ it is impossible to become better. The publishing house of the Sretensky Monastery, in the series “Letters on Spiritual Life,” published a collection of Gogol’s letters, which contain the richest church-ascetic experience of the writer. According to S.T. Aksakov, Gogol expresses himself completely in his letters; in this respect, they are much more important than his printed works. This is the first secular author to receive the honor of being published in this series, which, by the way, is very popular among readers. Creators such as Gogol, in their significance in the history of the word, are similar to the Holy Fathers in Orthodoxy. So, it seems to me, there is nothing harmful or seductive in Gogol’s teaching. A writer must teach if he is a writer. Why else do we need literature if it doesn’t teach, doesn’t develop a person... - Well, it’s one thing to develop, and another thing to be a teacher of life. Even as Christians, we all have somewhat different points of view on some subjects. “We have a common point of view on the most important subjects, and we confess our like-mindedness.” - But if we all have the same ideas, then why do we need a writer as a teacher? “And “Dead Souls”? Isn’t this teaching literature?” - Not the same ideas - we have criteria for good and evil, truth and lies. And Gogol, and Dostoevsky, and all Russian writers understood this perfectly. “If there is no God, then everything is permitted” is a very accurate and fair formula of Dostoevsky. Everything is allowed - the credo of many modern writers. Sometimes they think that Gogol taught only in his journalism, in spiritual prose. This is wrong. And “Dead Souls”? Isn't this educational literature? Many people do not understand who dead souls are. It is you and me who are dead souls. Gogol, in his suicide note, revealed the hidden meaning of the title of his poem: “Be not dead, but living souls. There is no other door except that indicated by Jesus Christ...” Gogol's heroes are spiritually dead because they live without God. This is said about all of us... And “The Inspector General”... “The inspector who waits for us at the door of the coffin is terrible,” said Gogol. This is the meaning of the famous comedy.

Dead souls, female images and reflections on the Liturgy

— How do you see why Gogol could not write the second volume of Dead Souls? Maybe because he failed to create a positive image? - A positive image - where can I get it? There is no positive person in nature. Man is sinful, he is a sinful being. Gogol denounced not man, but sin in man. A Russian proverb edifies: “Fight sin, but make peace with sinners.” So Gogol struggled with sin... - It was also believed that Gogol had no positive female images, that he was afraid of women and therefore was never married... - Gogol has no positive images at all. There are heroic ones. For example, Taras Bulba. And can a writer create a positive image? Very doubtful. - But there are positive images in literature after Gogol, say, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, Natasha Rostova... - Conditionally positive, of course. As one of Gogol’s heroes says: “All the women at the bazaar in Kyiv are witches.” Gogol has a slightly popular attitude towards this. He was not afraid of women, as is sometimes thought. He had very interesting and friendly relationships, and he corresponded with many wonderful women of his time, with Alexandra Osipovna Smirnova, for example. He saw himself as her mentor, many said that he was in love. But I think this is not true - there were other relationships here. And with Countess Anna Mikhailovna Vielgorskaya, whom he taught to be Russian. After all, these were people of an aristocratic circle; there was little Russian in them. Gogol understood this and tried to influence them to the best of his ability. So Gogol was not afraid of women. He cared very much about his mother and sisters. — So, we can say that there is no separate problem of positive female images? - Yes. Although Gogol tried to create in the second volume of Dead Souls a positive image of Ulinka (Ulyana), the bride of one of the heroes, Tentetnikov. Many people believe that this is an artificial image, although from what has come down to us, in my opinion, the image turned out to be successful. It is generally difficult to create a positive image, especially for a woman. - What did he intend to write the second volume about?.. - The heroes of the second volume are not virtuous heroes. As Gogol said, they should have been more significant than the heroes of the first volume. Chichikov had to eventually realize the falsity of his path. Come to an understanding of the gospel truth that it is of no benefit to a person if he gains the whole world but loses his soul. — Why then didn’t the second volume work out? — Because the goals that Gogol set for himself as a writer went beyond the scope of fiction. It is no coincidence that one of his last works was “Reflections on the Divine Liturgy.” Gogol said that in “Dead Souls” he wanted to show the reader the path to Christ so that it would be clear to everyone. This path has long been shown to everyone. And Gogol wrote that for those who want to move forward and become better, it is necessary to attend the Divine Liturgy as often as possible. She insensitively builds and creates man. And this is the only way. A writer cannot do anything better than to give such a lyrical interpretation, an explanation similar to Gogol’s “Reflections...”. In my opinion, this is one of the best examples of Russian spiritual prose, still underestimated. But the idea in this book is the same as in “Dead Souls”. - But in our time there are other interpretations of the Liturgy, more professional, or something... - There are, of course, other interpretations, more professional, as you say. But there is nothing like Gogol’s, artistic, imbued with a “lyrical view of the subject” (as the Optina monks, the first listeners of this work, said). It is no coincidence that Gogol’s book was the favorite of our royal martyrs. Already in captivity, in Tobolsk, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, together with Tsarevich Alexy, read it. This is the best book for children and teenagers.

Gogol's head

— The big question is the mystery of Gogol’s death, as well as the reburial of his remains in 1931. The story is downright mystical... - There is a lot of confusing and unclear things in this story. As you know, eyewitnesses who took part in the reburial give completely different evidence. They say that they could not make any decision until late in the evening, and only when it was completely dark did they receive permission from higher authorities to transport what they found after opening the grave to the Novodevichy cemetery. But what they were transporting is still unknown. There is a version that the grave was not found at all, and it is still unclear what was buried at the Novodevichy cemetery. There’s no point in understanding this; it’s better to put an end to Gogol’s grave. This must be done without a doubt. At the site of the previous burial in the St. Daniel Monastery, it is also worth putting up some kind of memorial sign or cross. I don't think there's much of a problem here. But it is hardly possible to find out everything with certainty now. There are different, mutually exclusive versions of this story. — Do you think all this interest in Gogol’s death has become somewhat unhealthy? - Certainly. But Gogol himself gave reason for this when, in his will, published in the book “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends,” he asked his body not to be buried until obvious signs of decomposition appeared.” He wrote this during his illness, as if anticipating death. And yet Gogol really died. The best doctors examined him; they could not have made such a grave mistake. There is also a spiritual explanation: after the church funeral, the soul can no longer return to the body; this is impossible for spiritual reasons. For some people this is not an argument; they can provide materialistic evidence. The sculptor Ramazanov, who removed the death mask, was forced to do this procedure twice, and the skin of his nose was even damaged and signs of decomposition were visible. Also, if you remember, in the 70s there was a poem by Andrei Voznesensky “The Funeral of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol”, where the author described this event in poetic colors, which also gave some stimulus and impetus to all sorts of rumors and conversations. — There was also a legend that Gogol’s head was missing when the grave was opened. I remember Bulgakov’s famous plot with Berlioz’s head... - Yes, it is definitely connected. There were very persistent rumors in Moscow, and Bulgakov, of course, knew about them. I have no doubt that this episode has a direct connection with conversations about Gogol’s head, but I repeat, it is almost impossible to establish what actually happened now. The most complete study that covers these events is Pyotr Palamarchuk’s book “The Key to Gogol,” which, by the way, was republished this year. “There is an expression: “We all came out of Gogol’s “The Overcoat.” Why exactly from “The Overcoat” by Gogol, and not from “Onegin” by Pushkin, or from something else? “This is humanistic pathos, attention to the ordinary person, which was so clearly manifested in Gogol’s story. Of course, humanistic pathos does not exhaust Gogol’s story; it also contains a very deep Christian thought. But most importantly, after Gogol it was impossible to write as if Gogol did not exist. “But there was humanistic pathos before that.” Why specifically from “The Overcoat” and specifically from Gogol? - Gogol really has works that are of particular importance for the history of literature. Do you remember the St. Andrew’s monument, which now stands in the courtyard of the house where Gogol died and where the museum has now been created? When this monument was unveiled in 1909, they said that the sculptor reflected in it two works by Gogol - “The Nose” and “The Overcoat”. The name itself - "The Overcoat" - sounds like a shot, without it it is impossible to imagine our literature. This is almost the first time that a thing has been used as a name. It seems to me that this is the right idea - that Russian literature, although not all of it, came out of “The Overcoat”. Few people came out of Dead Souls, and the work is unfinished... - So the main thing is Gogol’s attention to the “little” man? “He revealed the problems of these people. Indeed, in “The Overcoat” the traditions of patristic literature are palpable. Gogol knew hagiographic and hagiographic literature very well; this layer is very noticeable in his work. There is a whole literature on the hagiographic tradition in The Overcoat. None of Gogol's works can be reduced to an unambiguous meaning. — What do you mean by humanistic pathos? - Attention to the person. After all, every Gogol hero is written about us. For many of us, a thing becomes the most important thing in life. As one of the critics, a contemporary of Gogol, wrote: “In the image of Akaki Akakievich, the poet outlined the last facet of the shallowness of God’s creation to the extent that a thing, and the most insignificant thing, becomes for a person a source of boundless joy and destroying grief, to the point that the overcoat becomes tragic fatum in the life of a being created in the image and likeness of the Eternal...” — At school we were taught that Gogol was the founder of the natural school. What do literary critics think now? — During his life, Gogol was valued primarily as a humorist and satirist. Much of his work became clear later. And now any literary movement or trend can rightfully see in him its forerunner. And of course, Gogol became the father of the so-called natural school. A number of writers appeared who became Gogol's imitators. They described reality from nature as it is, although without the genius of Gogol, who had an abyss of spiritual meaning in this kind of description. Gogol really gave birth to this school, and the whole period in literature is rightly called Gogol's. I repeat, after Gogol it was impossible to write as if Gogol did not exist. - Now we are in the year of Gogol. Do any of the events seem successful to you? - Certainly. First of all, for the first time in Russia a Gogol Museum appeared. Oddly enough, until now we have not had a single Gogol museum. This is a full-fledged museum, in which a cultural and educational center has now been formed, in the house where Gogol lived and died, on Nikitsky Boulevard. — Is he already working? - Yes. Now it is already open, you can come and have a look. The museum is still in its infancy, exhibitions are changing, some things are being finalized, but since the end of April it has been open to visitors. In addition, an anniversary conference was held dedicated to the 200th anniversary of Gogol’s birth, which was held by Moscow University, our Faculty of Philology, together with the opened museum and with the Gogol Commission under the Scientific Council “History of World Culture” of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The forum brought together scientists from all over the world, about 70 participants from 30 countries. This was the central event of the anniversary celebrations. At the conference there was a presentation of a number of Gogol's publications. So Gogol studies are developing.

>Essays on the work The Inspector General

What is Gogol laughing at?

Why are you laughing? You're laughing at yourself!..

It has long been known that any work can be compared to an iceberg. There is always the top, which is 10 percent, and the deep part, which is under water, which accounts for the remaining 90 percent. The comedy "The Inspector General" is no exception.

On the surface lies a provincial town mired in corruption, tyranny, bribes and denunciations. Officials and law enforcement officers, called for the good of society, are only worried about their own interests, trying to snatch a bunch of delicacies. To make the images more vivid, the author resorts to the grotesque and also uses the technique of telling names.

Despite the fact that the play was written almost 200 years ago, unfortunately, Russian officials, whom N.V. mocks. Gogol, has not undergone any significant changes.

The deepest part of the work contains human vices. Of course, the basis is greed, baseness, meanness, and feeble-mindedness. Using the characters in the play as an example, we see the following:

An informer, a flatterer and a deceiver, this is just a weak list of the merits of the trustee of charitable institutions of Strawberry. Without a twinge of conscience, he is ready to betray and resort to meanness just to win over the auditor.

From which we can conclude that laughing and mocking the characters in N.V.’s play. Gogol is trying to reach our hearts. Pointing out how often we attach excessive importance and seriousness to empty worries ridicules the despicable and insignificant. And all this would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

The play “The Inspector General” was written almost 180 years ago, but how easily one can discern the features of our reality in the faces, actions and dialogues of its characters. Maybe that’s why the characters’ names have long become household names? N.V. Gogol made his contemporaries and descendants laugh at what they were accustomed to and what they stopped noticing. Gogol wanted to ridicule human sin in his work. That sin that has become commonplace.

The famous researcher of N.V. Gogol’s work, Vladimir Alekseevich Voropaev, wrote that the premiere of the comedy, which took place on April 19, 1836 on the stage of the Alexandrinsky Theater, according to contemporaries, was a tremendous success. “The general attention of the audience, applause, sincere and unanimous laughter, the challenge of the author...” recalled Prince P. A. Vyazemsky, “there was no shortage of anything.” Even Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich clapped and laughed a lot, and when leaving the box, he said: “Well, a play! Everyone got it, and I got it more than everyone else!” But the author himself perceived this performance as a failure. Why, with obvious success, Nikolai Vasilyevich wrote the following lines: “The Inspector General has been played - and my soul is so vague, so strange... My creation seemed disgusting to me, wild and as if not mine at all”?

It is very difficult to immediately understand what the author wanted to show in his work. Upon closer study, we can see that Gogol was able to embody many vices and passions in the images of his heroes. Many researchers emphasize that the city described in the play has no prototype, and the author himself points out this in “The Inspector General”: “Take a close look at this city, which is depicted in the play: everyone agrees, that there is no such city in all of Russia<…>Well, what if this is our spiritual city, and it sits with each of us?”

The arbitrariness of “local officials” and the horror of meeting an “auditor” are also inherent in every person, as Voropaev notes: “Meanwhile, Gogol’s plan was designed for precisely the opposite perception: to involve the viewer in the performance, to make them feel that the city depicted in the comedy exists not just somewhere, but to one degree or another in any place in Russia, and the passions and vices of officials exist in the soul of each of us. Gogol appeals to everyone. This is the enormous social significance of The Inspector General. This is the meaning of the famous remark of the Governor: “Why are you laughing? You’re laughing at yourself!” - facing the hall (precisely the hall, since no one is laughing on stage at this time).”

Gogol created a plot that allows the audience of this play to recognize or remind themselves of themselves. The entire play is filled with hints that transport the viewer to the author’s contemporary reality. He said that he did not invent anything in his comedy.

“There’s no point in blaming the mirror...”

In The Inspector General, Gogol made his contemporaries laugh at what they were accustomed to and what they stopped noticing - carelessness in spiritual life. Remember how the Governor and Ammos Fedorovich talked about sin? The mayor emphasizes that there is no such thing as a person without sins: this is how God himself created it, and there is no guilt in a person for this. When the Governor is hinted at his own sins, he immediately remembers both faith and God, and even manages to notice and condemn that Ammos Fedorovich rarely goes to Church.

The mayor's attitude towards the service is formal. For him, she is a means to humiliate his subordinates and receive an undeserved bribe. But power was not given to people by God so that they could do whatever they wanted. Danger! Only danger forces the Governor to remember what he has already forgotten. The fact that he is actually just a forced official who must serve the people, and not his own whims. But does the Governor think about repentance, does he bring, even in his heart, sincere regret for what he has done? Voropaev notes that Gogol wanted to show us the Mayor, who seemed to have fallen into a vicious circle of his sinfulness: in his repentant reflections, the sprouts of new sins arise unnoticed by him (the merchants will pay for the candle, not he).

Nikolai Vasilyevich described in great detail what respect, imaginary honor and fear of superiors are for people who love power. The heroes of the play go to great lengths to somehow improve their position in the eyes of the imaginary auditor. The mayor even decided to give his own daughter to Khlestakov, whom he had known for only one day. And Khlestakov, who has finally assumed the role of auditor, himself sets the price of the “debt”, which “saves” city officials from imaginary punishment.

Gogol portrayed Khlestakov as a kind of fool who first speaks and then begins to think. Very strange things are happening to Khlestakov. When he starts telling the truth, they don’t believe him at all or try not to listen to him at all. But when he starts lying to everyone's face, they show a lot of interest in him. Voropaev compares Khlestakov with the image of a demon, a petty rogue. The petty official Khlestakov, having accidentally become a big boss and received undeserved honor, exalts himself over everyone and condemns everyone in a letter to his friend.

Gogol revealed such a number of low human qualities not in order to give his comedy a more amusing look, but so that people could discern them in themselves. And not just to see, but to think about your life, your soul.

"The mirror is a commandment"

Nikolai Vasilyevich loved his Fatherland and tried to convey to his fellow citizens, to people who considered themselves Orthodox, the idea of ​​repentance. Gogol really wanted to see good Christians in his compatriots; he himself more than once instructed his loved ones in the need to keep God’s commandments and try to live a spiritual life. But as we know, even Gogol’s most ardent admirers did not fully understand the meaning and significance of the comedy; the majority of the public perceived it as a farce. There were people who hated Gogol from the moment The Inspector General appeared. They said that Gogol was “an enemy of Russia and should be sent in chains to Siberia.”

It should be noted that the epigraph, which was written later, reveals to us the author’s own idea of ​​​​the ideological concept of the work. Gogol left the following words in his notes: “Those who want to cleanse and whiten their faces usually look in the mirror. Christian! Your mirror is the Lord's commandments; if you put them in front of you and look at them closely, they will reveal to you all the spots, all the blackness, all the ugliness of your soul.”

The mood of Gogol’s contemporaries, who were accustomed to living a sinful life and who were suddenly pointed out to long-forgotten vices, is understandable. It is really difficult for a person to admit his mistakes, and even more difficult to agree with the opinions of others that he is wrong. Gogol became a kind of exposer of the sins of his contemporaries, but the author did not just want to expose sin, but to force people to repent. But “The Inspector General” is relevant not only for the 19th century. Everything that is described in the play we can observe in our time. The sinfulness of people, the indifference of officials, the general picture of the city allows us to draw a certain parallel.

Probably all readers thought about the final silent scene. What does it really reveal to the viewer? Why do the actors stand in complete stupor for a minute and a half? Almost ten years later, Gogol writes “The Inspector General’s Denouement,” in which he points out the real idea of ​​the entire play. In the silent scene, Gogol wanted to show the audience a picture of the Last Judgment. V. A. Voropaev draws attention to the words of the first comic actor: “Whatever you say, the inspector who is waiting for us at the door of the coffin is terrible. This auditor is our awakened conscience. Nothing can be hidden from this auditor.”

Undoubtedly, Gogol wanted to awaken in lost Christians a sense of fear of God. I wanted to shout through my silent scene to each of the spectators of the play, but not many were able to accept the author’s position. Some actors even refused to play the play after learning about the true meaning of the entire work. Everyone wanted to see in the play only caricatures of officials, of people, but not of the spiritual world of a person; they did not want to recognize their passions and vices in The Inspector General. After all, it is passions and vices, sin itself that is ridiculed in the work, but not man. It is sin that makes people change for the worse. And laughter in the work is not just an expression of the feeling of joy from the events taking place, but the author’s tool, with the help of which Gogol wanted to reach the petrified hearts of his contemporaries. Gogol seemed to remind everyone of the words of the Bible: Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,<…>neither thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners will inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10). And each of us needs to remember these words more often.

Andrey Kasimov

Readers

We recommend that thoughtful readers of N. V. Gogol’s works, as well as literature teachers, familiarize themselves with the work of Ivan Andreevich Esaulov “Easter in Gogol’s poetics” (it can be found on the educational portal “Slovo” - http://portal-slovo.ru).

I. A. Esaulov is a professor, member of the International Society of F. M. Dostoevsky, head of the department of theory and history of literature at the Russian Orthodox University, director of the Center for Literary Research. In his works, Ivan Andreevich tries to comprehend Russian literature in the context of the Christian tradition and its transformation in the twentieth century, and also deals with the theoretical substantiation of this approach.