Which works ridicule the behavior of officials. The theme of bureaucracy in Russian literature of the 19th century. Artistic visions for a better future

30.05.2021

Both comedies were written at the beginning of the 19th century - in the 20-30s. Both plays showed one layer of Russian society of that time - officials. Both plays underwent strict censorship and were enthusiastically received by the audience.

The play “Woe from Wit” was written by the summer of 1824 and was read in many houses in Moscow. The success was enormous. It was distributed throughout the country in lists because censorship did not allow it to be published. Griboyedov based his comedy on the clash between a man of progressive views and the reactionary mass of the nobility. Griboedov's skill in constructing a comedy is especially reflected in the fact that all the images given in it, even the most insignificant ones, play an important role in the development of the plot, especially in the implementation of the main ideological plan - to give a broad picture of modern Russian reality in the comedy , to show the clash of the “present century” with the “past century”.

In his comedy, Griboyedov very acutely raised a number of problems that were most important for his time: the problem of the serf peasantry, the problem of service in feudal-serf Russia, education and culture, the connection between the intelligentsia and the people, true patriotism. These problems gave the comedy an acute political character, making it a work that, even before being printed, was distributed in thousands of copies of handwritten copies not only in capitals, but also in provincial cities.

The bulk of the officials depicted by the author in the comedy belong to the so-called Famus circle. Famusov's goal in life is career, honors, wealth. Service in Famus society is understood only as a source of income, a means of achieving ranks and honors. They do not deal with matters on the merits; Famusov only signs the papers that are presented to him by his “businesslike” secretary Molchalin. He admits this himself:

As for me, what matters and what does not matter.

My custom is this:

Signed, off your shoulders.

Famusov accommodates his relatives:

When I have employees, strangers are very rare:

More and more sisters, sisters-in-law, children...

How will you begin to introduce yourself to a little cross, to a small town,

Well, how can you not please your loved one!..

Colonel Skalozub, as if echoing Famusov, declares:

Yes, to get ranks, there are many channels;

I judge them as a true philosopher:

I just wish I could become a general.

Careerism, servility, servility to superiors, dumbness - all the characteristic features of the bureaucratic world of that time are especially fully revealed in the image of Molchalin. He understands perfectly well what is required of an official if he wants to make a career. It’s only been three years since he’s been in Famusov’s service, but he’s already managed to “receive three awards,” become the right person for Famusov, and enter his house. That is why Chatsky, who is well familiar with the type of such official, predicts Molchalin the possibility of a brilliant career:

However, he will reach the known levels

, After all, nowadays they love the dumb.

Molchalin has all the potential to subsequently become an important official: the ability to ingratiate himself with influential people, complete indiscriminateness in the means to achieve his goal, the absence of any moral rules and, in addition to all this, two “talents” - “moderation and accuracy.” Famusov and his approach are afraid of the new, progressive like fire, since everything new threatens their unshakable position. Officials oppose science, educational institutions, and education in general. Famusov teaches:

Learning is the plague, learning is the reason

What is worse now than before,

There were crazy people, deeds, and opinions.

He offers a decisive way to combat this evil:

Once evil is stopped:

Take all the books and burn them.

Griboyedov endows all of his heroes, and not only officials, with his own special language, but they all have one thing in common - everyone adapts to the moment that comes. Famusov is sweet with his daughter, rude with servants, with Molchalin - bossily arrogant and on first name terms, ingratiating himself with Skalozub, seeing him as a groom for Sophia. Molchalin is a man of few words, because he is afraid to express his opinions. He doesn’t use common words like Famusov’s, he curries favor with Famusov, and he despises Chatsky. Skalozub is a narrow-minded soldier, polite with Famusov, but not shy in his expressions with Chatsky and others. At its core, the comedy “Woe from Wit” was the first play denouncing modernity and society.

It was followed 10 years later by the comedy “The Inspector General” by N.V. Gogol. As the author himself said, he decided to collect everything bad in Russia into one pile. The play was written in less than a year and thanks to the petition of V.A. Zhukovsky was admitted to the production. The plot of the comedy is based on the commotion among officials awaiting the auditor and their desire to hide their sins from him. This also determined such a compositional feature of the comedy as the absence of a central character in it. The action in “The Inspector General” dates back to the early 30s of the century before last. All kinds of abuses of power, embezzlement and bribery, arbitrariness and disdain for the people were characteristic, deep-rooted features of the bureaucracy of that time. This is exactly how Gogol shows the rulers of the county town in his comedy.

At their head is the mayor. He is not stupid: he judges more sensibly than his colleagues the reasons for sending an auditor to them. Wise from life and work experience, he “deceived swindlers over swindlers,” “played tricks on such swindlers and rogues that they were ready to rob the whole world.” The mayor is a convinced bribe-taker: “This is how God himself arranged it, and the Voltaireans are in vain speaking against it.” He is an embezzler: he constantly embezzles government money. In communicating with his subordinates, in relation to the population of the city, he is self-confident, rude and despotic: “And whoever is dissatisfied, then I will give him such displeasure ...”; “Here I am, the channeler...”; “What, samovar-makers, arshinniks...” Such rude shouts and abuse are typical of the mayor. But he behaves differently in front of his superiors. In a conversation with Khlestakov, whom he mistook for an auditor, the mayor tries to show himself as an executive official, speaks ingratiatingly and respectfully, overloading his speech with expressions accepted in the bureaucratic circle: “In other cities, I dare to report to you, city governors and officials care more about their own affairs.” there is benefit; and here, one might say, there is no other thought than to earn the attention of the authorities through decorum and vigilance.” The author did not even give him a last name; the mayor bears only his first and patronymic - Anton Antonovich.

The second most important person in the city is Judge Lyapkin-Tyapkin. Unlike other officials, he is a representative of the elected government: “elected as a judge by the will of the nobility.” Therefore, he behaves more freely with the mayor, allowing himself to challenge him. He is considered a "freethinker and educated man" in the city, having read five or six books. Officials speak of him as an eloquent speaker: “Every word you say,” Strawberry tells him, “Cicero rolled off your tongue.” Being carried away by hunting, the judge takes bribes with greyhound puppies. He doesn't deal with cases at all, and the court is a complete mess.

The trustee of charitable institutions, Strawberry, is a fat man, but a “subtle rogue.” In the hospital under his jurisdiction, patients are dying like flies; The doctor doesn't speak a word of Russian. On occasion, Strawberry is ready to denounce his colleagues. Introducing himself to Khlestakov, he slandered the postmaster, the judge, and the superintendent of schools. Timid, intimidated, and voiceless is the superintendent of the schools, Khlopov, the only one among the officials who is not a nobleman. Postmaster Shpekin is opening letters.

All officials are drawn by Gogol as if they were alive, each of them is unique. The images of the comedy are typical, the behavior of each character is motivated, their words and actions reveal their characters. With a destructive laugh, Gogol castigates the bureaucrats of Tsarist Russia.

And although Gogol depicted the world of provincial officials in The Government Inspector, the depth of the writer’s penetration into reality was so amazing that viewers and readers of the comedy immediately saw in it an image of all of Russia, its feudal-bureaucratic system. But the officials turned out to be very similar: the same passion for profit, respect for rank, the desire to rise or look unattainable for others. Both authors drew the characters’ traits from the life of the capital’s nobility that they knew after the War of 1812, endowing each of them with qualities unique to him. Two different writers, two different styles, but the goal is the same - to ridicule what interfered with normal life at the beginning of the 19th century.

A.P. Chekhov in his humorous story “Chameleon” makes fun of officials. From “But the dog must be exterminated” to “It’s your own fault” - this is how Ochumelov’s opinion changes with lightning speed. The author ridicules and condemns the “chameleonism” of the main character. In the works of A.P. Chekhov one can often “meet” works that touch upon the problem of “honor of rank.” One of these is the story “The Death of an Official.”

The main character, like Ochumelov, is characterized by “chameleonism”. Chervyakov’s monologues are filled with fear of high-ranking officials. After all, initially he says that “No one is forbidden to sneeze,” but, noticing General Brizzhalov, changes immediately occur in the hero. “I sprayed him!” - the author uses an exclamation to show the reader Chervyakov’s sudden anxiety. At the same time, if “Chameleon” is a humorous story and the denouement only makes you smile, then “Death of an Official” is a satirical work. In the finale, the main character not only dies, but also renounces his own human dignity. The problem of “honoring rank” in the story “The Death of an Official” is most condemned by the author.

In N.V. Gogol's comedy "The Inspector General" the behavior of officials is also ridiculed. The author, like A.P. Chekhov in “Chameleon,” expresses his opinion using irony and humor. The speaking surnames of the main characters reflect their vices and shortcomings. For example, Judge Lyapkin-Tyapkin is described by the writer as a stupid person who has read 5 or 6 books in his entire life. In addition, he also does everything carelessly. But, unlike the story of A.P. Chekhov, “The Inspector General” includes more specific examples of destructive bureaucracy.

Updated: 2018-02-23

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

Useful material on the topic

9. In what works of Russian literature is the behavior of officials ridiculed and in what ways can they be compared with “Chameleon” by A.P. Chekhov?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayor. Who, what official?

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

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

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

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

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

Dobchinsky. In the fifth room, under the stairs.

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

Mayor. How long has he been here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

N. V. Gogol “The Inspector General”

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

Explanation.

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

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

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

Answer: comedy.

Answer: comedy

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

Explanation.

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

Realism is a truthful depiction of reality.

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

Answer: realism.

Answer: Realism

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

Explanation.

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

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

Answer: dialogue.

Answer: dialogue|polylogue

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

Explanation.

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

Answer: remark.

Answer: remark|remarks

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

Explanation.

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

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

Answer: conflict.

Answer: Conflict

Julia Milach 02.03.2017 16:26

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

Tatiana Statsenko

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

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

Explanation.

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

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

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

Ammos Fedorovich. How's the auditor?

Artemy Filippovich. How's the auditor?

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

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

Answer: connection.

Answer: Tie

Explanation.

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

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

image bureaucracy official work of the Czechs

Chekhov was one of the first classical writers who completely denounced vulgarity and reluctance to live a full, rich life. In Chekhov's works we see a moral call for the inner freedom of man, spiritual purification. His later stories are permeated through and through with an inner spiritual cry: “It’s impossible to live like this anymore!” M. Gorky wrote about the significance of Chekhov’s work:

“No one understood as clearly and subtly as Anton Chekhov the tragedy of the little things in life; no one before him was able to so mercilessly and truthfully paint people a shameful and dreary picture of their lives in the dull chaos of bourgeois everyday life. His enemy was vulgarity; all his life he struggled with it, he ridiculed it and depicted it with a dispassionate, sharp pen, able to find the charm of vulgarity even where at first glance, everything seemed to be arranged very well, conveniently, even brilliantly...”

The theme of bureaucracy occupies a special place in Chekhov's work. It is reflected in many of his stories. This is exactly what we decided to choose as the topic of this course work.

The image of a poor official is traditional for Russian writers of the 19th century. However, this topic was explored by writers in different ways, and this image underwent significant changes. To reveal the image of a poor official, the most important are two completely different aspects: voluntary resignation to the position of a powerless person, the thought of the impossibility of changing anything, and the completely opposite desire to achieve “known degrees”, not disdaining any means.

The leading feature of his heroes is blind veneration of rank, reverence for a superior person; Their desire to gain rank is very strong, but they evoke pity and sympathy. The principle of combining the comic and tragic is already embodied in Chekhov’s early stories; later it will become leading in his poetics.

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

The relevance of this course work lies in the fact that this topic has not exhausted itself to this day. The phenomenon of Russian bureaucracy, understanding its nature and problems are extremely important for the reform and development of our society on a reasonable basis. In addition, A.P. Chekhov, being a recognized classic of Russian and even world literature, will never lose his popularity and modernity.

Speaking about the degree of development of the topic in educational and popular literature, we emphasize that we have not found a substantive and systematic analysis of the problem, including in educational and methodological literature, therefore, with our study of this topic we hope to somewhat fill this gap, generalize existing considerations and information on the topic, identify new approaches and reveal famous Chekhov’s texts in a single key - through the image of an official. This is the novelty of our work.

The object of our research is the works of A.P. Chekhov, which touches on the topic of bureaucracy

The subject is the image of an official and the means of his depiction in the works of A.P. Chekhov.

The purpose of our research is to determine the ways and means of depicting the image of an official in the stories of A.P. Chekhov.

The goal is achieved by solving the following tasks:

To analyze the critical literature on the problem of bureaucracy in the works of A.P. Chekhov;

Compare images of officials A.P. Chekhov with images of officials from other writers;

To identify linguistic means and ways of depicting an official in the stories of A.P. Chekhov;

The structure of this course work includes: introduction, two chapters and conclusion. The introduction substantiates the choice and relevance of the topic of the work, sets the purpose of the research, and defines the main tasks.

Chapter 1. The image of an official in Russian literature of the 19th century.

OFFICIAL - Civil servant (pre-revolutionary, foreign). A major official. Minor official.

“The landowners, zemstvo chiefs and all sorts of officials commanded enough over the peasants!” Lenin.

OFFICIAL - A civil servant. An official who performs his work formally, following instructions, without active participation in the matter; formalist, bureaucrat.

OFFICIAL - in Russia until 1917, a civil servant who had a certain class rank according to the Table of Ranks. Higher officials (usually 4th - 1st classes) were informally called dignitaries. In a broad sense - the name of lower civil servants who did not have ranks (clerks, copyists).

CHINOMVNIK, -a, m.

1. Civil servant in pre-revolutionary Russia and in bourgeois countries. Customs official. Police official. Petty officials. ? Titular Councilor Kaverznev was a very small official. Saltykov-Shchedrin, Senile grief. I happened to see several times how officials went to the presence in the morning.

2. transfer An official who performs his or her job formally, following instructions, without active participation in the matter. - There are officials sitting on the roadstead, inky rats! - Volodya Makarov was worried. “They don’t care that we lost two hours.”

Officialdom is a class that was widespread in old Russia, so the official was not a new figure in Russian literature. A.S. Pushkin was one of the first to touch upon the theme of the “little man,” reflecting it in the personality of the official Samson Vyrin in the story “The Station Warden.” A.S. Griboyedov, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, F.M. Dostoevsky - everyone experienced a bright palette of feelings towards one or another representative of a given class: from ridicule of vices to sympathy, pity.

§1. The theme of bureaucracy in Russian literature of the 19th century.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§2. The image of an official in the stories of A.P. Chekhov

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

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

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

In Chekhov, he (the official) acquires a completely independent collective image, bearing within itself the many-sided features of the essence designated by the concept of “rank” in human society. This is how the theme of the “little man” ended in Chekhov’s stories - one of the strongest themes in Russian classical literature.

Beings destitute and oppressed, these “little people” were indeed worthy of compassion, deprived of the care and protection of the state, “humiliated and insulted” by the power of higher officials.

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

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

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

The main object of the writer’s artistic research - “Chekhov’s world” became that in Russian society that connected it into a single state organism, where service relations become the most fundamental relationships between people - the basis of society. A complex hierarchy of people and institutions is emerging, in relationships of subordination (command and subordination) and coordination (subordination).

On this basis, a system of power and management, unprecedented in history, is developing in Russia, in which tens of millions of people are involved - all sorts of bosses, managers, managers, directors, etc., who become masters of the situation, imposing their ideology and psychology, their attitude towards the whole society. all aspects of public life.

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

Thus, the object of close attention of Chekhov, the writer and researcher, became “state-owned” Russia - the environment of bureaucracy and bureaucratic relations, i.e. the relationship of people to the grandiose state apparatus and the relationship of people within this apparatus itself.

Therefore, it is no coincidence that it was the official who became one of the central figures (if not the most important) in Chekhov’s work, and representatives of other social categories began to be considered in their bureaucratic-like functions and relationships.

Chapter 2. Official of post-reform Chekhov's Russia

So, what is he like, an official of Chekhov’s post-reform Russia?

We learn about this by analyzing the texts of A.P.’s stories. Chekhov.

Chekhov’s refraction of the “little man” theme is clearly visible

in the story “The Death of an Official” (1883)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§1. Verb vocabulary and its function in the text

The verb, together with verbal forms, which has a large “set” of categories, forms and shades of meaning, is one of the stylistically remarkable parts of speech in the Russian language.

By its nature, the verb is one of the main means of expressing dynamics. This is partly why scientific and business speech are contrasted with artistic and colloquial speech in terms of the frequency of use of verb forms; It is precisely this character of the former that is opposed to the verbal character of the latter. Business speech is characterized by nominal expressions of an official nature: Providing assistance, eliminating deficiencies, taking part in... etc. Fiction, journalistic and lively colloquial speech make greater use of verb forms, avoiding nominal constructions. The overall dynamism of speech largely depends on this. If we compare scientific speech as a whole with artistic speech in relation to the use of the verb, then the qualitative nature of the verbs in the first case and the dynamic nature in the second case clearly appear. This is due not only to the frequency of verbs in speech, but also to their composition, i.e. lexical and grammatical side. Since in scientific works we are talking about constant features and qualities of objects, about natural phenomena, descriptions take up more space, since the corresponding verbal units - in terms of the meaning of lexemes and forms - are selected from the language system. It is no coincidence, for example, that in scientific speech many state verbs used in the present tense do not denote a dynamic state at the moment of speech, as is typical, for example, of everyday speech, but quality.

The stylistic properties of various categories and forms determine the varying degrees of their application in functional styles. For example, forms of the imperative mood, rich in expression and emotionality, are almost unknown in scientific and official business speech, but are widely used in colloquial fiction and journalistic speech (in the latter case, in appeals).

Many shades of the verb type and ways of expressing them have limited areas of use. For example, verbs of multiple and single action are a striking feature of colloquial speech (beat, caught, sadanul), but are not characteristic of book speech.

Verb categories and forms have rich synonymy and possibilities for figurative use. For example, the present of a living representation is used to express actions that took place in the past, or, on the contrary, the past tense is used to express actions in the future, etc. All the diversity of these possibilities is presented in fiction. It is also characteristic of artistic speech that, within a relatively small context, a wide variety of forms and their meanings, as well as ways of expressing moods, are used for expressive purposes, while scientific and especially business speech is characterized by the use of forms of one or two types.

§2. The functioning of verbal vocabulary in the story by A.P. Chekhov's "Death of an Official"

The pinnacle of the comic discrepancy between what should have been, from the point of view of common sense, and what actually happened, is the event that forms the basis of the 1883 story “The Death of an Official.” One person, sneezing, accidentally sprayed another, and then... died of fear and grief. However, the anecdote acquires the flesh of authenticity.

The story is extremely laconic and, as a result, dynamic. This special dynamism of the story is contained in verbs and their forms (in all their diversity). It is through verbal vocabulary that the plot develops, and the characteristics of the characters are also given; although, of course, the writer also uses other artistic techniques (for example, speaking surnames).

But let's move directly to the text.

The main character of the work is introduced into the story in the very first lines: “One fine evening, an equally wonderful executor, Ivan Dmitrievich Chervyakov, was sitting in the second row of chairs and looking through binoculars at the Bells of Corneville.” He looked and felt on top of bliss. But suddenly...” As we see, the plot of the story is already contained here - the intriguing “But suddenly...”. The ellipsis only enhances this effect. Through verbs, the author introduces us to this atmosphere.

First of all, it should be noted that the action develops in the past long time, i.e. the action is represented in its existence, statically. This is achieved thanks to the form of verbs - past tense, imperfect form (sat, looked, felt).

The verb looked gives us the primary characteristics of the hero. Ivan Dmitrievich Chervyakov sat in the theater and did not watch, but looked at the stage. The word itself bears the imprint of colloquialism, stylistic “lowness”. Thus, Chervyakov seems to us to be a simple man in the street, a “little man.”

The repetition of the verb (... and looked through binoculars at The Bells of Corneville. He looked and felt...) fixes our attention on the state of “looking” of the hero, which indicates some relaxation and which, in part, serves as an impetus for the development of the plot, since it causes surprise sneezing.

“But suddenly his face wrinkled, his eyes rolled up, his breathing stopped... he took the binoculars away from his eyes, bent down and... apchhi! He sneezed, as you can see.” The author gradually brings us to one of the key words of the story. With clear, bright verbs, Chekhov conveys Chervyakov’s state, the process of sneezing itself (a series of winced - rolled up - stopped - pulled away - bent over - sneezed). Thus, the writer conveys the state of a person, his hero, through actions.

The author presents this case directly and easily. This is facilitated by constant appeal to the reader. In this case, the verbs are used in the present tense (it occurs, as you can see). Although it should be noted that it is not the author himself who addresses the readers, but rather the narrator. He is the author of a small “lyrical digression”, a reflection on sneezing: “Sneezing is not forbidden to anyone anywhere. Men and police chiefs, and sometimes even privy councilors, sneeze. Everyone is sneezing." In the first case, the verb sneeze is part of a compound verbal predicate in an impersonal sentence. In this case, we are dealing with the present timeless, which is only emphasized by the impersonal form. This, in turn, refers us to the scientific style, or rather, to the truly timeless with a touch of quality, i.e. We are talking here about a quality, a property inherent in a person. Further repetition of this verb (sneeze) in the present tense, 3rd person, plural form extends this property to all people (Everyone sneezes).

In total, the word sneeze appears six times in the story (one of them is in the form of a gerund), but its repeated repetition (four times in a row) puts a logical emphasis on it, on the one hand, and this word becomes one of the key words of the text, on the other hand - imparts to this action the nature of constant, repeated repetition in life, i.e. commonality, commonality.

Then the action develops dynamically. This is achieved through the use of perfective verbs, because It is they who represent action as a component of a dynamic situation [Karpukhin 2004: 106], in development. “Chervyakov was not at all embarrassed, wiped himself with a handkerchief and, like a polite person, looked around him: had he bothered anyone with his sneezing? But here I already had to be embarrassed. He saw that the old man sitting in front of him, in the first row of seats, was diligently wiping his bald head and neck with a glove and muttering something.” As we can see, the verbs used here in the perfect form of the past tense convey the actions of the hero, Ivan Dmitrievich Chervyakov (was not embarrassed, wiped himself off, looked, did not bother, saw). The verbs of the imperfect form that we encounter here convey Brizzhalov’s state rather than the action (wiped, muttered).

The case of opposition in the above passage is also interesting: I wasn’t embarrassed - I had to be embarrassed. The first form of the 3rd person singular verb of the past tense conveys Chervyakov’s action - he was not embarrassed, speaks of his natural behavior (he just sneezed, and no one is forbidden to sneeze). The second, impersonal form rather conveys the effect of something extraneous on the consciousness of the hero, an influence from the outside - he had to be embarrassed. What made him embarrassed was the realization that he had caused trouble, especially since it turned out to be a civil general, the rank of an old man being the determining factor here. The prevailing morals, principles and admiration for high rank determine the further behavior of the hero. This verb - to be embarrassed is also one of the key ones.

And then a “fatal” thought comes to Chervyakov’s head: “I sprayed him!” - thought Chervyakov. - Not my boss, a stranger, but still awkward. I need to apologize." This phrase contains two verbs that are key to the entire text. This is to spray and apologize. They will “sit” in the hero’s mind and will “torture” him until the very end of the story. Their compositional value is determined by the honesty of their use. The verb to spray occurs four times, and it enters the text, most often, through the dialogue between Chervyakov and Brizzhalov. The verb excuse/apologize occurs seven times and “accompanies” Ivan Dmitrich from the moment the conflict began.

The hero's condition changes dramatically when his apology, in his own opinion, is not accepted properly. This is achieved by repeating the same verbs in the same forms, but in different contexts. Compare: He looked and felt at the height of bliss. - He looked, but no longer felt bliss. The anxiety arising in Cherovyakov’s head is also conveyed through the verb - it “began to torment” him. The prefix gives the verb a rudimentary action, its weak expression. It is this anxiety that makes the hero want to explain: “I should explain to him that I didn’t want it at all...”. The subjunctive mood gives the action a hint of desirability, but after the next meeting the “desirability” turns into a firm intention: I’ll explain to him...

During the second meeting between the general and the executor, laughter comes into the story. It should be noted that laughter here is immediately perceived as ridicule:

You're just laughing, sir! - he said, hiding behind the door.

“What kind of ridicule is there? - Thought Chervyakov. “There is no ridicule here at all!”

A synonym (including contextual) for the word “laugh” is “mockery”. It is the possibility of ridicule that worries and frightens Chervyakov.

“I came yesterday to worry about you,” he muttered when the general raised his questioning eyes to him, “not to laugh, as you deigned to say.” I apologized for sneezing, sir... but I didn’t even think of laughing. Do I dare laugh? If we laugh, then there will be no respect for people... there will be...

Chervyakov did not think, did not dare to laugh. The last sentence generally contains the whole essence of the philosophy of the ill-fated executor Ivan Dmitrievich Chervyakov. Here the discrepancy with elementary human common sense also “pops up”. On the one hand, “no one is forbidden to sneeze,” this is natural and characteristic of every person, but on the other hand, he “does not dare laugh” at this “natural” and generally funny incident.

This discrepancy becomes fatal for the hero. The last “explanation” with the general turns out to be tragic for him.

Something came off in Chervyakov’s stomach. Seeing nothing, hearing nothing, he backed away to the door, went out into the street and trudged... Arriving mechanically home, without taking off his uniform, he lay down on the sofa and... died.”

The entire tragedy of the denouement, the climax of the story, is conveyed here precisely through verbal vocabulary: pulled away - without seeing - without hearing - backed away - went out - trudged - arriving - without taking off - lay down - died. All of the above verbal forms convey, first of all, the state of the hero, his crushed, killed - he did not walk, but trudged, he did not see or hear anything. And as a result of everything, he died.

The tragic ending of the story is not perceived as such. The word “verb”, which contains the culmination and denouement of the work, is stylistically reduced, colloquial. Thus, the reader feels the attitude of the author himself towards the hero, or rather towards his death. It is ironic, he does not consider this the death of Man, the true “pathos” of death is not felt here.

Thus, the entire behavior of Ivan Dmitrievich Chervyakov, the entire development of actions can be conveyed through the following series of key verbs: sat - looked - sneezed - had to be embarrassed - sprayed - apologize - explain - I don’t dare laugh - came off - backed away - trudged - lay down - died. As you can see, the entire plot of the story is based on verbal vocabulary (or rather, directly on verbs).

A.P. Chekhov decisively rethinks the traditional image of the “little man” in Russian literature. Often “The Death of an Official” by A.P. Chekhov is compared and contrasted with “The Overcoat” by N.V. Gogol. But Ivan Dmitrievich Chervyakov is decidedly different from Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin. And the general is far from being an “oppressor”; he is not that formidable. After all, he barked at his visitor only when he brought him more and more visits. The general’s “boiling” can also be conveyed through a number of verbs. So, first he “mumbled,” then he “said,” then he “made a whiny face and waved his hand,” and only then he “barked.” The degree of the general's rage is conveyed by the participial forms - the general, suddenly blue and shaking, barked.

In addition, the general’s condition is also conveyed by the person in which he addresses Chervyakov. If at first he answered him in the second plural, i.e. on you (let me listen, laugh), then his last phrase is extremely expressive due to the imperative mood and the address to you: Get out!

Thus, one of the leading stylistic functions in A.P.’s story. Chekhov's “Death of an Official” is performed by verbs and their forms. It is the verbal vocabulary that contributes to the brightness, expressiveness and conciseness of the work, which are the defining features of A.P.’s style. Chekhov.

Having traced the functioning of verbal vocabulary in the text, we came to the following conclusions.

The verb, together with its verb forms, which has a large “set” of categories, forms and shades of meaning, is one of the stylistically remarkable parts of speech in the Russian language.

First of all, the verb is the main means of giving the text dynamism and communicating the development of actions.

The functioning of a verb in a text is determined by its personal form, tense, mood, aspect.

The meanings and functions of the past tense are especially diverse in literary texts. The past tense in a literary text is divided into three main types - the past imperfect, expressing a long-lasting action in the past (this is what the descriptive past is called), the past perfect with an effective meaning, and the past narrative.

The determining factor here is the type of verb, which represents the action in two aspects. These are the action view statically and the action view dynamically.

In the story by A.P. Chekhov’s “The Death of an Official”, the verbal vocabulary determines the entire plot fabric of the story and performs the following functions:

1. verbs of the past tense of the imperfect form convey to a greater extent the state of the hero;

2. verbs of the past tense of the perfect form report the action directly in development, in dynamics and contain the plot thread of the story;

3. present tense verbs (in impersonal sentences) convey generality and routine to an object, action, state;

4. the same verbs in different contexts contain oppositions, i.e. are contextual homonyms;

5. stylistic reduction of verbs is a means of expressing the author’s attitude towards the hero, because characterize him in many ways;

6. repetition of the same verbs puts logical emphasis on them and suggests that they may be key;

7. the degree of expressiveness of verbs conveys the emotional state of the characters;

8. participles and gerunds are shading in relation to verbs and contribute to a more vivid characterization of the characters.

Thus, it is the verbal vocabulary in A.P.’s story. Chekhov's "Death of an Official" is a defining feature of the writer's style.

Conclusion

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

And with amazing artistic power, using the example of bureaucracy, he showed that a person’s position in the social system and hierarchy of Russian society began to turn into a factor that determines all other aspects of a person’s life, and the relationship of command and subordination became the basis for all other relationships. Chekhov managed to create a picture of the tragicomedy of human existence in a world of illusory values, worries and anxieties, unprecedented in Russian and world literature.

M. Gorky wrote about the significance of Chekhov’s work:

“No one understood as clearly and subtly as Anton Chekhov the tragedy of the little things in life; no one before him was able to so mercilessly and truthfully paint people a shameful and dreary picture of their lives in the dull chaos of bourgeois everyday life. His enemy was vulgarity; all his life he fought with it, he ridiculed it and depicted it with a dispassionate, sharp pen, able to find the charm of vulgarity even where at first glance, everything seemed to be arranged very well, conveniently, even brilliantly ... "

Therefore, among the Chekhov heroes considered in the course work are not just officials by profession, but various forms of bureaucratic relations, called the “Chekhov world”, where Chekhov managed to create a picture of the tragicomedy of human existence in a world of illusory values, worries and worries.

A review of the sources used allowed me to see and appreciate different views and approaches to the topic of bureaucracy.

We began the main part of the work with the vision of the official by other writers, in order to understand how Chekhov saw it and what new things he brought to this image.

The main task of our research is to show how the writer saw the official.

The theme of the “little man” is traditional in Russian

literary tradition - found a unique refraction in Chekhov’s stories.

Gaining social status by rank, Chekhov's little man becomes an essentially petty official - not only and not necessarily by profession, but by his main function in society, losing his humane human qualities.

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

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

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

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

References

Big Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2000.

Gogol N.V. Favorites - Moscow. Enlightenment.1986

Griboyedov A.S. Woe from Wit - Moscow AST Astrel. 2003

Gromov M.P. A book about Chekhov - Moscow: Sovremennik, 1989. Electronic version.

Dostoevsky F.M. Crime and punishment. Moscow enlightenment 1989

Small academic dictionary

Pushkin A.S. Selected works in two volumes. volume one. Moscow. fiction.1978

Kuznetsov's Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language

Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

Posted on Allbest.ru

Which works ridicule the behavior of officials. The theme of bureaucracy in Russian literature of the 19th century. Artistic visions for a better future

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Similar documents