On the relationship between the comic and the tragic in Gogol’s play “The Inspector General”. On the relationship between the comic and the tragic in Gogol's play The Inspector General

17.04.2019

This feature of Gogol’s utopia also attracts attention. The most important thing must happen outside the immediate perception of the “Inspector General”. The experiences that renew the reader or viewer and all the spiritual work generated by them should unfold only when the reading or performance is already left behind (remember that the entire stage action of “Dénouement” recreates the situation after the performance). Gogol’s correspondence regarding “The Inspector General’s Denouement” also takes the problem of transforming the audience beyond the scope of its direct contact with “The Inspector General” himself. In this regard, the project of practical implementation of the utopian ideas outlined in the new play is interesting. We are talking about a new separate edition and a new performance of “The Inspector General”, dedicated to the benefit performance of M. S. Shchepkin. And it is impossible not to notice that Gogol sets two mandatory, from his point of view, conditions. Firstly, “The Inspector General” should be presented in the form in which it acquired after revision in 1841–1842, when the presence of a utopian plan in the comedy became more noticeable. Secondly, “The Inspector General” should be staged only together with “The Inspector General’s Denouement” (“with the addition of a tail,” as Gogol put it in a letter to Shchepkin on October 24, 1846). The author of The Inspector General insisted especially stubbornly on the second condition. Having encountered resistance from Shchepkin and partly from S.P. Shevyrev, whom he also tried to attract to the implementation of his project, Gogol tries to convince them and even makes concessions, reworking new play. When it becomes clear that “The Inspector General’s Denouement” in any version is unacceptable to his correspondents, he abandons his project. The logic of his position is clear: either his comedy will be re-published along with the play that complements it (essentially, together with a teaching, instruction, sermon), or it should not be published or staged. theater stage. It turns out that his utopian plan seems impossible to him without combining the two plays into one whole. Apparently, Gogol suspected that “The Inspector General” by itself could not create the effect necessary to achieve his goal, that in the very artistic nature of his comedy there lay some obstacle that prevented it from turning it into a force that brings “formidable purification.”

In search of this internal obstacle, one cannot ignore two obvious patterns that can be traced in the stage and creative stories"Inspector". The first of them boiled down to the following: in those productions in which it was possible to achieve stunning tragedy in the sound of the finale (in the production of V. E. Meyerhold, for example), the play ceased to be funny

Apparently, Gogol was not mistaken. Both laughter principles are combined inseparably in The Inspector General, and they are combined throughout the entire duration of the action. On the one hand, the most important law of satirical structure is observed all the time: none of the characters are corrected throughout the action, their original qualities remain the same, only revealing themselves more deeply and fully. But on the other hand, comedic metamorphoses occur here all the time, “upsetting,” as Galich would say, “the actual forms and relationships” of the depicted world.

Already the news of the upcoming appearance of the auditor disrupts the routine order in the life of Gogol’s city. The street immediately becomes entangled with a broom, a case with a hat, a marital letter with a tavern bill. Things and ideas are shifted from their places by the new situation, chaos penetrates the system, and this chaos gives rise to something like creative ferment. The primary impetus is given from the outside, but it awakens the internal elements of “urban” life. In characters characters some kind of latent obsession, or, rather, many different obsessions, reminiscent of the “enthusiasm” of the heroes of “Dead Souls,” intensifies and takes on an explosive character. The judge never ceases to be clever, the trustee of charitable institutions constantly spoils his colleagues, the postmaster, obeying impulses of curiosity, every now and then opens and keeps other people's letters forever, etc. Each person has his own obsession, but they are all brought together by the ability to almost instantly reach extreme tension and pour out uncontrollable pressure into words, into action, into emotional excitement that captivates those around you.

Here lie the sources of irrational energy, grotesquely transforming the world depicted by Gogol. This energy is emitted primarily by Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky: they not only announce the appearance of the expected inspector, but also literally create him from the few details at their disposal. The desire to be the first to meet the auditor and the first to announce him to everyone becomes almost magical power. They need an auditor, and Khlestakov immediately becomes an auditor, for now only for them. Then their passionate impulse is transferred to other characters.

The power of this collective obsession ignites Khlestakov's own ambitions and his own energy. In the lying scene, he really looks the way people around him need to see him. And then the act of universal joint creativity creates a new reality. In the scenes of the fourth act, Khlestakov seems to become the inspector expected by everyone, fully fulfilling all his expected functions. And everyone else, as if infected by his lightness, is drawn into his game and already dares to do previously unimaginable desires, requests, actions, ascending in unbridled dreams to ranks, fame, luxury, and comfort unattainable in reality.

Even later, the rapid, almost vaudeville pace of the action makes it possible to weave another eccentric metamorphosis into its dynamics: sitting down to write a letter to his friend Tryapichkin, Khlestakov instantly turns into a lively accuser-feuilletonist. And in the scene of reading this letter, intercepted by the postmaster, several officials, as if in a clown show, alternately act as Khlestakov’s deputies, repeating and emphasizing the scathing assessments and characteristics given to him.

The news of the real auditor and the general “petrification” turn out to be another metamorphosis. Of course, this is a metamorphosis of a completely different kind than all the previous ones. The finale is a miracle in the precise sense of the word: it is a sharp violation of the already outlined laws of the depicted world. And yet, this is yet another metamorphosis, and, in a certain sense, prepared. It is prepared at least by the fact that the consciousness of the reader or viewer is already accustomed to the very possibility of continuous transformations of one thing into another. The depicted world is plastic enough for a miracle to happen in it. And at the same time, it is insolvent enough for a catastrophe to occur within it. Both main qualities of this world are united in the potential aspiration to another existence.

We can talk about a kind of interference between satirical denunciation and the actual comedic dynamics. The growing tension of the “auditor situation” contributes to the merciless exposure of social untruth: it is this that reveals its laws and “mechanism”. But it also introduces comedic “cheerful turmoil” (the expression of N. Ya. Berkovsky) into the world of familiar forms of life and consciousness, transforming absurdity into creative chaos, causing a “Dionysian” ferment of awakened elements and a rapid flow of destructive-creative transformations. Both functions are not only combined, but also connected: metamorphoses reveal the “obsessions” of the characters, “obsessions” generate the energy of metamorphoses.

True, the inseparability of two interacting structural and semantic principles creates contradictions that require resolution. What fun game the creative forces of life and consciousness are constantly embodied in transformations, with all their tangibility - deceptive, giving the dynamics of action obvious ambivalence. It is this that requires an outcome: the metamorphoses that transform the comedic world captivate the consciousness that perceives them, but cannot satisfy it. There is something seductive and at the same time untrue about them: the feeling of the miraculous is excited, but also held back by the constant feeling that all transformations are not happening “for real.” And satirical ridicule - the very thing that with its sharpness holds back the ready to soar into boundless comedic delight - it, in turn, is held back by the fact that it cannot manifest itself in unconditional purity, by the fact that it is complicated by the cheerful adventurism of comedic laughter, by the fact that pleasure, Delivered by a comedy game with depicted reality, it can turn any ugliness into a “pearl of creation.” “Gogol involuntarily reconciles with laughter,” Herzen wrote about this in the book “Past and Thoughts”

This feature of Gogol’s utopia also attracts attention. The most important thing must happen outside the immediate perception of the “Inspector General”. The experiences that renew the reader or viewer and all the spiritual work generated by them should unfold only when the reading or performance is already left behind (remember that the entire stage action of “Dénouement” recreates the situation after the performance). Gogol’s correspondence regarding “The Inspector General’s Denouement” also takes the problem of transforming the audience beyond the scope of its direct contact with “The Inspector General” himself. In this regard, the project of practical implementation of the utopian ideas outlined in the new play is interesting. We are talking about a new separate edition and a new performance of The Inspector General, timed to coincide with the benefit performance of M. S. Shchepkin. And it is impossible not to notice that Gogol sets two mandatory, from his point of view, conditions. Firstly, “” should be presented in the form in which it acquired after revision in 1841–1842, when the presence of a utopian plan in the comedy became more noticeable. Secondly, “The Inspector General” should be staged only together with “The Inspector General’s Denouement” (“with the addition of a tail,” as Gogol put it in a letter to Shchepkin on October 24, 1846). The author of The Inspector General insisted especially stubbornly on the second condition. Having encountered resistance from Shchepkin and partly from S.P. Shevyrev, whom he also tried to attract to the implementation of his project, Gogol tries to convince them and even makes concessions by reworking a new play. When it becomes clear that “The Inspector General’s Denouement” in any version is unacceptable to his correspondents, he abandons his project. The logic of his position is clear: either his comedy will be re-published along with the play that complements it (essentially, together with teaching, instruction, sermon), or it should not be published or staged on the theater stage. It turns out that his utopian plan seems impossible to him without combining the two plays into one whole. Apparently, Gogol suspected that “The Inspector General” by itself could not create the effect necessary to achieve his goal, that in the very artistic nature of his comedy there was some kind of obstacle that prevented it from being turned into a force that brings “formidable purification.”

In the search for this internal obstacle, one cannot ignore two obvious patterns that can be traced in the stage and creative stories of The Inspector General. The first of them boiled down to the following: in those productions in which it was possible to achieve stunning tragedy in the sound of the finale (in the production of V. E. Meyerhold, for example), the play ceased to be funny

Already the news of the upcoming appearance of the auditor disrupts the routine in the life of Gogol’s city. The street immediately becomes entangled with a broom, a case with a hat, a marital letter with a tavern bill. Things and ideas are shifted from their places by the new situation, chaos penetrates the system, and this chaos gives rise to something like creative ferment. The primary impetus is given from the outside, but it awakens the internal elements of “urban” life. In the characters of the characters, some kind of latent obsession, or, rather, many different obsessions, reminiscent of the “enthusiasm” of the heroes of “Dead Souls”, intensifies and takes on an explosive character. The judge never ceases to be clever, the trustee of charitable institutions constantly spoils his colleagues, the postmaster, obeying impulses of curiosity, every now and then opens and keeps other people's letters forever, etc. Each person has his own obsession, but they are all brought together by the ability to almost instantly reach extreme tension and pour out uncontrollable pressure into words, into action, into emotional excitement that captivates those around you.

Here lie the sources of irrational energy, grotesquely transforming the world depicted by Gogol. This energy is emitted primarily by Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky: they not only announce the appearance of the expected inspector, but also literally create him from the few details at their disposal. The desire to be the first to meet the auditor and the first to announce him to everyone acquires almost magical power. They need an auditor, and Khlestakov immediately becomes an auditor, for now only for them. Then their passionate impulse is transferred to other characters.

True, the inseparability of two interacting structural and semantic principles creates contradictions that require resolution. The fact that the cheerful play of the creative forces of life and consciousness is constantly embodied in transformations, with all their tangibility - deceptive, gives the dynamics of action obvious ambivalence. It is this that requires an outcome: the metamorphoses that transform the comedic world captivate the consciousness that perceives them, but cannot satisfy it. There is something seductive and at the same time untrue about them: the feeling of the miraculous is excited, but also held back by the constant feeling that all transformations are not happening “for real.” And satirical ridicule - the very thing that with its sharpness holds back the ready to soar into boundless comedic delight - it, in turn, is held back by the fact that it cannot manifest itself in unconditional purity, by the fact that it is complicated by the cheerful adventurism of comedic laughter, by the fact that pleasure, Delivered by a comedy game with depicted reality, it can turn any ugliness into a “pearl of creation.” “Gogol involuntarily reconciles with laughter,” Herzen wrote about this in the book “Past and Thoughts”

How to download free essay? . And a link to this essay; On the relationship between the comic and the tragic in Gogol’s play “The Inspector General” already in your bookmarks.

Additional essays on this topic

logical thinking

MOU average

To understand the play “The Inspector General” as a comedy, it is necessary to clearly understand what the comic is and what are the means of depicting the comic. The comic is a special aesthetic category. Aesthetic categories are certain concepts developed by people, with the help of which we evaluate various life phenomena: we call some phenomena beautiful, others - ugly, others - sublime, others - low, others - tragic, and others - comic. Comical are such life phenomena that contain inconsistency with the generally accepted norm, alogism. The constant source of the comic in life is the unfounded claim: “... the true area of the comic is man, human society, human life, because in man the desire to be something other than what he can be develops, inappropriate, unsuccessful, absurd claims develop. Everything that comes out in a person and in human life unsuccessful, inappropriate, becomes comical, if it is not terrible or harmful.” Our reaction to the comic is laughter. Poetic art has many ways, means, and techniques for displaying the comic. There are special genres whose content is only comic: comedy, vaudeville, farce, epigram, parody, etc. However, the comic can be an integral part of the content of other genres. When depicting the comic, writers use such a technique as situational comedy, create comic characters, evaluate the actions of the heroes, their behavior, and individual situations through laughter. There are different gradations of laughter: humor, irony, sarcasm, grotesque. Humor is the ability to recognize comic features, aspects and phenomena in life and reproduce in art. Humor - special kind comic, which manifests itself in particular shortcomings of life phenomena, individual funny character traits, appearance and behavior of people. Irony is a special type of ideological and aesthetic assessment of the phenomena of reality, which is characterized by hidden (disguised by external seriousness) ridicule. Irony in art is an artistic technique used by the author to subtly ridicule and condemn human vices. Grotesque is “one of the types of typification (mainly satirical), in which real life relationships are deformed, verisimilitude gives way to caricature, fantasy, and a sharp combination of contrasts. The grotesque principle of typification should be distinguished from the allegorical one, which is characterized by rationalism and a given allegory. The grotesque plan does not allow every conventional detail to be deciphered and, on the whole, unlike an allegory, it is relatively independent in relation to the real plan. However, in the end it always depends on him.” Let us remember the time when the comedy “The Inspector General” (1836) was written: the dark era of Nicholas I, a system of denunciation and investigation was in place, and frequent “incognito” inspector visits were common. Gogol himself defined the idea of “The Inspector General” as follows: “In “The Inspector General” I decided to collect in one pile all the bad things in Russia that I knew then, all the injustices... and make everyone laugh at one time.”3 One of the features of the comedy “The Inspector General” is that it contains already established characters and these characters are described by the author in “Notes for Gentlemen Actors.” While reading a comedy, you need to remember these remarks and refer to them from time to time in order to understand how the character of this or that hero is realized in actions. Let's read the first act and see how Gogol depicts the events that make up the beginning of the conflict. The main events of the first act: The mayor reads a letter informing him of the possible arrival of the auditor; The mayor gives orders to officials to restore order in their institutions; Dobchinsky and Bobchinsky report an unknown person living in the hotel; The mayor decides to go to the hotel; The mayor gives orders to the quarterly and private police officers to put the city in order; The mayor goes to the hotel. To get started dramatic conflict, the letter received by the Mayor is not enough, it is necessary that just at that time an unknown person appears in the city hotel and that the city gossips Dobchinsky and Bobchinsky see him, and it is necessary that Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky has a lot of official sins, so that he is very afraid of the audit (otherwise he would not have believed Dobchinsky and Bobchinsky so easily). The fact that the Governor is guilty of sins is evidenced by his orders to officials, the private bailiff and the police officer, as well as the speed of his decision to go to the hotel: to find out whether the “auditor” is young or old, i.e. whether it is easy or difficult to deceive him. In the first act, Gogol's amazing dramatic skill was manifested mainly in the fact that he came up with such a plot that immediately set in motion all the characters in the comedy. Each of the heroes, alarmed by the news of a possible audit, behaves in accordance with his character and his crimes against the law.

In 1836, the comedy N.V. Gogol's "The Inspector General" first appeared on the stage of the Alexandrinsky Theater. Russian society was confused, bewilderment was reflected on the face of every spectator after watching the play: everyone found “The Inspector General” something unexpected, not previously known.

It wasn't just the audience that was puzzled; the actors also saw completely new characters and were at a loss as to how to play them. Indeed, The Inspector General was noticeably different from the numerous melodramas and vaudevilles that filled the theater stages of that time. But, due to its dissimilarity to conventional works, the comedy was not perceived as Gogol intended. He was upset and, to some extent, disappointed by the effect produced, by the audience's reaction to his play. He noticed more than once that the "Inspector General", who collected in himself all the negative phenomena modern life, should become a kind of “medicine”: people, seeing the heroes on stage, may recognize themselves in them, or at least some of their features, and even within the walls of the theater they will think about it, and when they come home, they will decide to improve and start a new life.

But Gogol did not achieve this. The actors made caricatures out of the heroes, and Khlestakov, whom he rightly called the most complex character, turned out to be an ordinary braggart and liar, a traditional “vaudeville naughty.” We managed to achieve only one thing - laughter in the hall; but the laughter was not caused by the reasons the author had counted on. The audience laughed at the comical characters, their stupid remarks, actions, facial expressions, etc. Undoubtedly, this is funny, but this is not what the main blow of Gogol’s irony was aimed at. Paying tribute to traditional vaudeville, in “The Inspector General” he used their characteristic techniques, scenes whose comedy was designed for meaningless laughter, and not for understanding their deep meaning. Nevertheless, their appearance is completely justified: they reflect the characters of the heroes and are therefore typical of them.

To make the viewer laugh, Gogol used two methods. One of them involves understanding the characters’ characters, and from this side “The Inspector General” is a comedy of characters; on the other hand, to portray these same characters, Gogol forces their owners to do unexpected, stupid things, to find themselves in funny situations - this is a comedy of situations.

The latter method is clearer; one of his options was to use “rude comedy”, understandable to everyone, and therefore there is no need to rack your brains, looking for some kind of secret intention of the author in the falls and stutters. All these situations serve only to understand how this or that hero behaves in this or that case. One cannot help but smile, seeing how the Mayor, worried and fussing, being, so to speak, in a state of passion from the news of the arrival of the auditor, tries to put on a paper case instead of a hat; The viewer laughs both at the scene of Anna Andreevna reading a note from her husband with instructions on preparations for the meeting of the “auditor”, mixed with a mention of pickles and caviar, and at how Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky collide with the congratulations of Gorodnichy’s wife.

These are all elements of "rude comedy". In order for the actor to correctly portray the facial expression and nature of the character’s movements, the comedy contains stage directions, which, it should be noted, are largely involved in creating a specific atmosphere of comedy. Yes, a brilliant rating given to the district doctor Gibner, which “makes a sound somewhat similar to the letter u and somewhat like e.” Gogol managed to accurately characterize in a few words the medical “help” provided in some district (and not only) cities: how can a doctor who does not speak or understand Russian help?

No less remarkable is Khlestakov’s speech in the scene of his conversation with Osip about dinner: at first he “speaks in a loud and decisive voice,” then “loud, but not so decisive,” and ends with “a voice that is not at all decisive and not loud, very close to a request.” ".

What Gogol gave great importance speech and intonation of the characters is undeniable, because the very form he chose for his work - a play - implies that one can only find out about the reasons that prompted the characters to take certain actions by analyzing the author's summaries (in this case - "Notes for gentlemen actors ") or actually from their monologues, which are of a confessional nature, but there are none in The Inspector General. Therefore, it is from the stage directions that the actor learns how his character behaved, his facial expressions at the moment of the action: he shuddered, jumped for joy, screamed, or sat “with his eyes bulging.” Thus, the author's remarks, the speech of the characters, the stupid situations in which they find themselves serve to create a picture of their characters. The revelation of the psychology of the city's inhabitants occurs in the process of developing the central intrigue ("mirage", in the words of Yu. Mann). Its premise is a meeting between Khlestakov and Gorodnichy, here every word they say causes laughter: of course, there are no funnier people who do not hear what their interlocutors say to them and answer inappropriately. The intensity of passions occurs in Act V, where the scene of reading Khlestakov’s letter to his friend Tryapichkin takes place. The indignation of officials over the very unflattering characteristics given to them is combined with the despair of the Governor due to the fact that he “took an icicle, a rag for important person", and creates a unique effect of the general confusion of the heroes after the blow inflicted on them; then Gogol “finishes off” them: a real inspector has arrived. The audience cannot help but laugh, looking at the officials frozen in the “silent scene.” Someone “turned into question mark", someone spread their hands, someone just stands like a pillar...

Gogol's language, “unprecedented, unheard of in its naturalness” (V.V. Sokolov), fully accommodates and reflects his unusual humor. Not only in the stage directions, in “Notes for Gentlemen Actors” (i.e., where the presence of the author is directly indicated), every word is imbued with irony; the speech of the characters themselves causes the audience to laugh at them. One gets the impression that “The Inspector General” is one big joke, and, despite the undoubted existence of tragic notes, they are still dressed in a peculiar humor inherent only to Gogol.

1. Realism in the reflection of life, in composition, in the depiction of characters and in the language of comedy.

3. Comic means in comedy.

4. Gogol’s work on the language of comedy.

5. The meaning of comedy (1. From the material proposed below, the teacher can make a selection at his own discretion).

1) Realism in the reflection of life, in composition, in the depiction of characters and in the language of comedy

First of all, the teacher summarizes the students’ observations of the picture of life in Russia in the 30s of the 20th century, reflected in the comedy, the composition of the comedy, the characters of its characters, their behavior and speech.

The picture of life, brilliantly drawn by Gogol in the comedy “The Inspector General” and unfolded in a clear composition, reflected Nikolaev Russia in the 30s of the 20th century. In this picture, Gogol showed the typical circumstances of life in those years, and this is one of the convincing proofs of the realism of Gogol’s comedy

Gogol brought the gallery into comedy immortal images, giving each of them typical features and endowing each of them with a bright individualized speech characteristic. The language of Gogol's comedy is mainly the language of its characters, and the language of the characters, organically connected with the internal appearance of a particular character, is the main means of revealing character, i.e., the form in which its internal content is expressed. Not only the central characters, but even episodic characters, flashed in only one phenomenon, have a clearly individualized speech.

In the unsurpassed ability to give each image a prominent, clearly individualized speech characteristic and in this very characteristic to contain elements of satirical self-exposure lies the skill of Gogol the realist, amazing in its subtlety and aesthetic value.

Revealing the speech of characters belonging to various social circles (officials, landowners, merchants, townspeople, policemen, servants, etc.), Gogol masterfully knows how to endow each of them with words and expressions inherent in his social psychology, profession, his life experience.

In general, the speech of the characters is distinguished by truthfulness, simplicity, naturalness, an abundance of colloquial and colloquial turns and intonations, which gives the whole work the character of true realism.

The teacher will recall some examples that have already been discussed, involving students in this work, and at the same time he can point out new, additional material that was not covered in previous lessons.

We recommend, as a supplement, to dwell on three episodic images taken from various social spheres: Rastakovsky, Derzhimorda and the tavern servant, and show how Gogol masterfully depicts them by means of speech individualization.

A) Rastakovsky- a retired official, an honorary person in the city. He is introduced into the comedy only in Act V (appearance 3), when guests gather at the mayor’s house to congratulate him on the “unusual part that has fallen”: he “comes to the hand” of the mayor’s wife and daughter. His greeting takes on a florid, verbose, somewhat inverted form, which gives his entire appearance greater solidity and respectability: “Congratulations to Anton Antonovich! May God prolong the life of you and the new couple, and give you numerous offspring, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”

In the future, Rastakovsky is represented by only one broadcast phrase. When the mayor expresses a desire to be a general, Rastakovsky thoughtfully and assertively says: “It is impossible from man, but from God everything is possible.” In just a few words Gogol can draw bright image old, respectable official.

b) In character Derzhimorda Gogol created the classic image of a policeman, who, according to the mayor, is distinguished by the fact that he gives free rein to his fists: “for the sake of order, he puts lanterns under everyone’s eyes: both the right and the wrong” (Act I, Rev. 5).

Few remarks uttered by Derzhimorda convincingly reveal the main features inherent in the police, on which the government of Nicholas I relied. Here is the diligence of the policeman in a conversation with the mayor" “Was on orders,” Derzhimorda reports ( Act III, yavl. eleven).

Or in one remark the author expressed the rude treatment of the population by the police. Derzhimorda, restraining the petitioners who want to get to Khlestakov, not allowing them in, rudely snaps back: “Go, go! Doesn’t accept, sleeps” (act IV, appearance 9).

c) A typical image emerges in several replicas tavern servant. In relation to the person passing by (i.e. Khlestakov), he observes drilled respect: “Did you deign to ask?” (act II, appearance 9), helpfulness: “Perhaps I’ll tell you” (act II, appearance 4). But essentially he is only a transmitter of the words of his master: “The owner ordered to ask,” “the owner said,” etc. Acting at the will of his master, he is forced to express unpleasant, even offensive words to Khlestakov’s eyes, albeit with restraint: “Yes, it is that is, perhaps, yes or no”, “They already, and: weight g but: they pay money”, etc. (action 11, phenomenon 6K By the way, not the etching form of these expressions, the distorted word “usually”, an incorrect turn : “they ate the salmon” - all these are indicators of the illiteracy of the tavern servant.

2) The author’s language in comedy

When studying the language of the comedy “The Inspector General,” one cannot ignore the language of the author himself. First of all, you should draw students’ attention to the telling names of Gogol’s characters, for example: Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky, Khlestakov, Lyapkin-Tyapkin, Abdulin, Ukhovertov, Derzhimorda, Gibner, etc., and also remind them of “Notes for gentlemen actors” under the heading “Characters and costumes”, where Gogol indicates the elements of the characteristics of the characters in the comedy.

In some of the remarks, Gogol points out the actions of the characters, for example: the mayor “makes a grimace,” Bobchinsky “twirls his hand near his forehead,” the policeman “runs in a hurry,” Khlestakov “pours soup and eats” and many others; in other remarks, he clarifies the psychology of the characters: the mayor says “in fear”, Anna Andreevna - “with disdain”), Khlestakov - “showing off”, the judge - “lost”, Marya Antonovna - “through tears”, etc.

Sometimes Gogol depicts the psychological evolution of the characters with several side-by-side remarks.

For example, the mayor’s reading of a letter in Act I (appearance 1) is accompanied by three remarks (“mutters in a low voice, quickly running his eyes”, “significantly raises his finger up”, “stopping”), which help to better imagine the state of this character during reading. Gogol sometimes notes in what voice the character pronounces words. Thus, with remarks, he points out the shades of Khlestakov’s voice in Act II (phenomena 2): first, “he speaks in a loud and decisive voice,” then “in a loud, but not so decisive voice,” finally, “in a voice that is not at all decisive and not loud, very close to the request."

In order to reveal inner world As a character, Gogol often resorts to remarks “to the side” or “to himself,” followed by words that represent the character’s innermost thoughts and feelings and are addressed directly to the audience. The “to the side” remark especially clearly helps to identify the character’s internal state when it is in proximity to the “aloud” remark, which is followed by words addressed directly to the partner.

Sometimes Gogol inserts apt verbs into his remarks for greater expressiveness. Osip “grabs” from the bed (act II, appearance 1); Khlestakov “shows out” the locksmith (act IV, appearance 11); the mayor “bursts and dies with laughter” (act V, appearance 1), “shouts out, jumping for joy” (act IV, appearance 15).

Finally, one more type of Gogol’s remarks should be emphasized: the inclusion of detailed narrative pieces as remarks.

So, at the end of Act II we read: “Having written, he gives it to Dobchinsky, who approaches the door, but at that time the door breaks, and Bobchinsky, who was eavesdropping on the other side, flies with it to the stage. Everyone makes exclamations. Bobchinsky is rising."

Thus, when studying the comedy “The Inspector General”, it is necessary to pay attention to the language of not only the characters, but also the author himself, who, with his numerous remarks, states the behavior and internal state of the characters.

3) Comic means in “The Inspector General”

The main meaning of the comedy “The Inspector General” is the merciless exposure of the structure of life, the practices and abuses of officials in Nikolaev Russia, which is achieved through subtle and deep ridicule of the characters in the comedy.

Gogol’s satirical laughter strikes the officials depicted in the comedy, city landowners, merchants, townspeople, police officers, and Khlestakov, who came to this provincial town. Gogol ridicules the deeds, actions and relationships of the characters in his comedy. The nature of the speech itself of the characters in the comedy also contributes to the satirical exposure.

Gogol's laughter is merciless, it is connected with the author's reflections on life and people and pushes the reader into deep and sorrowful reflection. Gogol's laughter finds various means for its expression.

Students need to be introduced to the various means of comedy in The Government Inspector so that they understand the poignancy of Gogol's laughter. Consideration of the features of the comic, of course, can be associated with the characteristics of the characters, but at the end of the work on comedy, summing up the features of the language, it is advisable to give a special place to this topic.

If the students are asked the question Elements of what causes laughter in “The Inspector General,” then, externally, perhaps, first of all, the attention of their comedy will be drawn to the methods of external comedy that immediately catch the eye and which students will probably easily point out and yourself. These examples of external comedy are usually indicated by the author's remarks scattered throughout the comedy.

The mayor “makes a grimace”, “takes a case instead of a hat”, Khlestakov “claps his hands and bounces slightly in his chair”, “slips and almost lands on the floor”; Bobchinsky “flies with her (the door - P.B.) onto the stage”, appears “with a band-aid on his nose”; Christian Ivanovich “makes a sound partly similar to the letter i and somewhat like e” - these are several examples of external comedy in comedy.

But the main meaning of laughter in “The Inspector General” is not in the techniques of external comedy, but in the sharp ridicule of the characters of the characters and their relationships.

A characteristic feature of laughter in “The Inspector General” is the gradual transition from comic to serious, even tragic.

The transition from comic to serious and tragic

The character of Gogol’s humor was figuratively defined as serious, as Shevyrev also shared ( S.P. Shevyrev is a professor at Moscow University, a reactionary critic and literary historian. He had a personal friendship with Gogol).

“Look at the whirlwind before the storm begins: it sweeps lightly and low from the right; sweeps up dust and all sorts of rubbish from the ground; feathers, leaves, shreds fly up and curl; and soon the whole air is filled with its wayward whirling... It seems light and insignificant at first, but in this whirlwind the tears of nature and a terrible storm are hidden. This is exactly what Gogol’s comic humor is like” ( "Moskvityanin", 1842, No. 8, p. 356.).

At first, the reader laughs at the confusion of the mayor and the officials invited to tell them “unpleasant news”, at the mayor’s dream, which he conveys as a harbinger of the arrival of an unexpected auditor; above Chmykhov’s letter, which serves as the “reliable” source on the basis of which the mayor reports the arrival of the auditor; over the orders and advice of the mayor; over the mayor’s flirtatious wife, who is interested in the appearance of the capital’s guest; over an insignificant St. Petersburg official, now helpless in front of the tavern owner or cowardly in front of the incoming mayor, now pretending to be important, carried away by uncontrollable lies, recklessly dragging after the mayor's wife and daughter, etc. But the comedy ends with a scene full of internal drama when the mayor he is convinced that he made a mistake, mistaking “an icicle, a rag” for an important person, that the many years of practical experience of a hardened cunning and deceiver have betrayed him. The severity of this situation is deepened by the fact that this “unparalleled embarrassment” occurs at the moment of supreme triumph of the mayor and his wife, anticipating all the sweetness of the happiness ahead of them. An intonation full of drama can be heard in the frantically pronounced words of the mayor: “Look, look, the whole world, all of Christianity, everyone, look how the mayor has been fooled!”

Here, in these words, highest point exposing the mayor, it is not without reason that “the whole world, all of Christianity” is brought in as witnesses. In this monologue, the mayor expresses his fear of being exposed to the public eye, he is afraid of falling under the pen of a “paper mark”, of being put in a coma for the day, he is afraid of general ridicule, that is, of what Gogol has already done.

There is a deep meaning in the words of the mayor, addressed not only to the public sitting on the other side of the ramp, but also to all those who were representatives social order of the then Tsarist Russia and at the time of the performance was behind the steps of the theater: “Why are you laughing? You’re laughing at yourself!”

Laughter in “The Inspector General” is combined with the author’s bitter reflection on the life depicted; this is “laughter through tears.”

How does Gogol achieve the effect of ridiculing his characters? How is this expressed in their language? Comic means are very diverse.

It should be noted that the characters are comedies. Diverse characters are depicted differently, and the laughter that is expressed by their words is not the same, and the characteristic of laughter created by this laughter is different. in "The Inspector General". for example, it is enough to recall two monologues from Act II: Osip (appearance 1) and Khlestakov (appearance 5) (they were mentioned above). The heroes, having found themselves in an unfavorable situation, experience hunger, are indignant at it and express their opinions along the way. Both characters evoke laughter, but readers laugh at the characters in different ways: if they show some sympathy for Osip, then they laugh indignantly at Khlestakov.

The main character of the laughter in The Inspector General, to which the characters are subjected, is revelatory, and the author finds a variety of means to express laughter.

Below are examples of the diverse comic means from The Inspector General. The teacher can use this material at his own discretion.

One of the most important means of ridiculing characters in comedy is alogism, that is, the absence in the speech of the characters in the comedy of sufficient logic in the presentation of their thoughts. This technique reveals the intellectual limitations of one or another character and, causing natural laughter, thereby contributes to his exposure.

This is, for example, the explanation in Chmykhov’s letter of the main feature of the mayor (he “has sins”) by the fact that he is a “smart man.”

The judge’s guess about the reason for the auditor’s visit also seems unfounded: “This means this: Russia... wants to wage war, and the ministry... sent an official to find out if there is any treason” (act I, episode 1 ). Even the mayor could not resist exclaiming: “What a waste! He’s also a smart person!” The postmaster has the same guess. There is no logical connection in the assessor’s explanation of the reason for his inherent wine smell: “he says (the judge reports) that his mother hurt him as a child, and since then he has smelled a little of vodka” (Act I, Appearance 1). The mayor’s argument in his dispute with the judge about bribes looks illogical. “Well, what if you take bribes with greyhound puppies? But you don’t believe in God” (Act I, Rev. 1).

The proximity of the serious with the small, insignificant

An effective comic device exposing the bureaucratic bureaucratic world of Russia, revealing the emptiness, insignificant neighborhood serious with small, insignificant, which reduces the significance of the serious and causes laughter.

The alarming and serious message about the arrival of the auditor is based on a private letter from Chmykhov, who, along with the news about the auditor, reports some “family” details: “sister Anna Kirillovna came to us with her husband; Ivan Kirillovich has gotten very fat and keeps playing the violin” (act I, scene 1).

Throughout Act I, the excitement of the characters in connection with the visiting auditor is accompanied by small, insignificant details. The story of Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky (phenomenon 3) is especially replete with them (as mentioned above).

These everyday details reduce, on the one hand, the image of the “auditor” himself, and on the other hand, they make the storytellers themselves petty and vulgar.

The presence of small everyday details contributes to ridicule of the mayor’s orders and advice. It turns out that what is important is not how patients are treated, but that patients “usually” “walk around at home” (in dirty caps) and “smoke such strong tobacco that you always sneeze when you enter.” The point is not how to improve the matter of legal proceedings, but the fact that “there in the hallway, where petitioners usually appear, the guards have kept domestic geese with small goslings that are scurrying around under their feet.” It is also bad that “all sorts of rubbish is dried in the very presence, and there is a hunting rack above the cupboard with papers,” etc.

In this juxtaposition of the serious and the petty, the insignificant, is the comic meaning of many scenes in The Inspector General. Here is the end of Act 1. The mayor is alarmed by the unexpected arrival of the auditor and goes to the hotel to find out about him, and his coquette wife is interested in the details of his appearance.

The same laughter is caused by Anna Andreevna’s remarks in Act III, when she questions Dobchinsky, being interested not in the essence of the matter, not in what alarmed the mayor and the same Dobchinsky, but appearance arrived.

It is built on this same opposition of interests between the serious and the empty. comic effect 10th phenomena III actions (scene with Osip). The mayor, supposing an important person in Khlestakov, wants to find out more about him. Anna Andreevna and Marya Antonovna attack Osip in their own way, like real provincial coquettes, with their frivolous remarks only disturbing the mayor and irritating him.

Attributing a random quality to a person

Laughter in comedy is caused by the technique attributing to a person (an image of a person outside the stage) such an external quality, which in fact is accidental, but is presented as essential. This comically colors not only the person in question, but also the character who expresses such a characteristic.

Here, for example, is how the mayor characterizes the assessor: “he is, of course, a knowledgeable person, but he smells as if he had just come out of a distillery” (Act I, App. 1).

And here is what the mayor says about teachers (act I, appearance 1): they have “very strange actions, naturally inseparable from an academic title.” One of them “cannot manage without making a grimace when he ascends to the pulpit. Like this (makes a grimace). And then he will begin to iron his beard with his hand from under his tie.”

And the other, the “scientific head,” “gathered a ton of information, but only explains with such fervor that he does not remember himself”: “he ran away from the pulpit and, with all the strength he had, grabbed the chair on the floor.”

But the comic is not limited to highlighting one random trait that comically colors a person; the comic is deepened by the fact that the statement of this trait is accompanied by thoughtful reasoning or advice. Thus, the mayor recommends “advising (the assessor) to eat onions or garlic, or something else.”

Having touched on the characteristics of teachers, the mayor cannot do without further reasoning. About the first of them, he says: “Of course, if he makes such a face on a student, then it’s nothing, maybe that’s what it’s needed there... but judge for yourself, if he does this to a visitor, it could be very bad.” etc. The strange feature of the second teacher, “but the historical part,” forces the mayor to also make a thoughtful conclusion: “Of course, Alexander the Great is a hero, but why break the chairs? this is a loss to the treasury.” The mayor philosophically generalizes the conversation about teachers: “Yes, this is the inexplicable law of fate: an intelligent person is either a drunkard, or he will make such a face that he can even take away the saints.”

The protrusion of one external random trait in a person, thoughtful philosophizing on this matter and “practical” advice - all this, in combination with the circumstances when all this is discussed, undoubtedly creates a comic effect.

Surprise, situations, thoughts

Comedy is created unexpected situations and thoughts, conclusions of the characters. This is, in terms of the situation of thoughts, an example, the statement of strawberries in Act I (phenomenon 1) about healing the sick: “As for healing, Christian Ivanovich and I took our own measures: the closer to nature, the better; We do not use expensive medications. The man is simple: if he dies, he will die anyway; If he gets well, he’ll get well.”

Khlestakov’s opinion about officials after receiving money from them seems unexpected. “However, these officials are good people,” he characterizes them, “it is a good trait on their part that they gave me a loan” (Act IV, Rev. 8). This conclusion is unexpected, first of all, because the officials did not show any kindness, and also because Khlestakov just called them “what a fool!” He himself, in a letter to Tryapichkin, ridicules the officials who helped him out and gave him money, although he does not realize that he himself is ridiculous in his unexpected and essentially incorrect confession.

The use of the same surprise in a turn of thoughts, which is an indicator of a lack of integrity, is used to build two remarks from the postmaster about the arrival of the auditor in Act I (episode 2). The technique of surprise also underlies two closely related dialogues between the mayor and the postmaster (act I, scene 2 and act V, scene 8). In Act I, in a conversation with the postmaster, the mayor himself pushes him to illegal actions: “Couldn’t you, for our common benefit, print out every letter that arrives at your post office, incoming and outgoing, you know, a little bit and read." In Act V, when the postmaster appears with Khlestakov’s letter, which he intercepted and detained, following the mayor’s orders, he unexpectedly attacks him, reproaching him for an illegal act: “How dare you print a letter from such an authorized person?” And he even threatens him: “I’ll put you under arrest,” “I’ll caulk you all the way to Siberia.”

Reception of lies

Causes laughter and comic device lies, discrepancies between words and deeds. For example, at the beginning of Act II, the viewer sees Osip lying on Khlestakov’s bed. In the first remark, the author indicates: “lying on the master’s bed.” Meanwhile, when Khlestakov appears in the 2nd scene and the first thing he does is pay attention to the “knotted” bed, Osipa asks: “Was he lying on the bed again?”, he categorically denies: “Why would I be lying around? Didn’t I see a bed, or what?” etc.

The mayor’s lies are of a different nature (Act III, Rev. 5), when he “describes” his efforts and concerns about the improvement of the city: “even when you go to bed, you keep thinking: my God, how can I arrange it so that the authorities see my jealousy and it was enough,” etc. These words of the mayor evoke Strawberry’s revealing remark

The same applies to playing cards (Act III, Rev. 5): as soon as Khlestakov touched upon this issue, the mayor, realizing that it would be more profitable to pass himself off as a non-player, denies his involvement in playing cards: “I have never taken cards in my hands.” , I don’t even know how to play these cards,” etc., which in turn evokes a remark from Luka Lukic refuting these words.

Readers, knowing the mayor’s idleness, his carelessness about the city, laugh, indignant at his hypocrisy and sycophancy before his superiors.

Khlestakov's deep self-exposure lies in the famous sienna of his lies (act III, appearance 6). Khlestakov, taking advantage of the impression made on the officials, getting more and more into the role and no longer giving himself a clear account of what his lips are saying, lies without any measure

The more Khlestakov lies, the more acutely he exposes himself, and the more he exposes, the more he causes laughter from readers who see his emptiness and insignificance.

The manifestation by persons of extreme naivety, excessive gullibility, speaking of gullibility, about the narrow horizons of their thoughts, about their incredible stupidity. Such, for example, are the requests of the Petrov Ivanovichs, with which they turn to Khlestakov (act IV, scene 7).

Manifestation of excessive naivety and gullibility by the characters

Extreme gullibility, combined with excessive limitations, appears in the dreams of the mayor and his wife in Act V. These dreams have no basis except Khlestakov’s empty, frivolous promises, but the mayor and Anna Andreevna have gone far: they will live in St. Petersburg, and he will tell the mayor to hell, and will receive the rank of general, and “the cavalry will be hung” over his shoulder ( either red or blue). The comedy of the dreams of the Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky couple in this scene is further enhanced by their low ideal: the mayor dreams of two “fish, vendace and smelt,” and Anna Andreevna imagines the first house in the capital and “the room has such... an aroma that it is impossible to enter "

Dialogue in two different semantic plans

One of the most brilliant means of comic revelation of characters is dialogue in two different semantic plans. This is how the mayor talks to Khlestakov in Act II (appearance 8), ridiculing themselves in front of the audience. Although this dialogue is conducted in different semantic planes, both characters behave exclusively naturally and truthfully.

When the mayor enters Khlestakov’s hotel, both stop “in fright.” And this fear is prepared: the mayor is afraid of responsibility for his “sins”, and his excitement and fear are already shown in Act 1, while Khlestakov, who is not paying money, has already been warned by Osip and the tavern servant about the inn owner’s intention to complain to the mayor, and Osip has just told him reported that “the mayor arrived, inquired and asked” about him.

Both are afraid of each other and apologize: “It’s not my fault.” Khlestakov, justifying himself to the mayor, accuses the owner of serving beef so hard, “like a log,” and the mayor, seeing this as a reproach to himself, praises the beef that is sold at the market: “At my market, the beef is always good. They bring Kholmogory merchants." Naturally, the concerned mayor thought it best to offer the visiting authorities to “move to another apartment,” obviously to him, but Khlestakov understands this differently: it means going to prison, because Osip warned him that the owner of the tavern wants to put him in prison for non-payment of money.

Khlestakov, frightened by prison, assumes importance, swaggers, “How dare you?.. I serve in St. Petersburg,” etc. The mayor, cowardly, assumes a slander from the merchants, to whom he “got a bad deal.” The reader laughs when he hears two frightened rogues speaking as if in two different languages, not understanding each other.

It’s funny when Khlestakov protests against prison, which the mayor doesn’t even think about, but it’s no less funny when the mayor, completely at a loss, blurts out to the imaginary auditor about bribes, about the non-commissioned officer’s widow, about merchants.

Both characters continue to be funny. The mayor asks the high person to take pity on him, not to destroy him, and as an excuse points to his wife and small children (although the viewer knows what kind of children he has). Khlestakov perceives this as the reason that he should go to prison. Or: the mayor mentions the flogging of a non-commissioned officer’s widow, but Khlestakov, not understanding this, thinks that they want to flog him. Khlestakov explains that he is sitting in a hotel because he doesn’t have a penny, but the mayor, immediately realizing, picks up this idea from Khlestakov and offers him a loan, which saves the situation. For this, Khlestakov calls the mayor a noble man, not understanding what he gave he receives money not out of a sense of nobility, but only out of fear of the visiting boss, in order to win him over.

Without dwelling on all the details of this dialogue, we note one more detail: the mayor once again invites Khlestakov to move to another apartment, and approaches carefully, helpfully (“Do I dare ask you”, “I’m not worthy”, “I would dare”) and says directly about a room in his house, to which Khlestakov immediately agrees. When the mayor hinted about inspecting prisons, Khlestakov, fearing to go to prison, refuses this offer: “But why prisons? It would be better if we inspect the charitable establishments.”

Replies aside

The display of the mayor’s internal state in dialogue with Khlestakov, his double game, his growing ability to control himself, to deceive and dodge, is intensified by introducing him into this dialogue special welcome, promoting satirical ridicule of this character, - cues “to the side.” Putting two remarks of the mayor side by side, one “to the side”, the other “out loud”, Gogol sharply contrasts them with each other: “out loud” - the mayor formally, politely addresses Khlestakov, whom he takes for his superiors, while “to the side” he expresses his innermost thoughts and feelings, and in these remarks one can hear distrust of the interlocutor, wariness, and suspicion.

As soon as Khlestakov hinted about money, the mayor said to himself: “Oh, a delicate thing! Where did he throw it? what a fog he brought in! figure out who wants it. You don’t know which side to take,” etc.

“To the Saratov province! - he repeats to himself incredulously when he finds out where the traveler is heading. - A? And she won't blush! Oh, yes, you need to be careful with him!” How much caustic ridicule and mockery can be heard in the words of the mayor, pronounced “to the side,” which sharply contrast with the words “out loud,” for example: “You deigned to undertake a good deed,” “And you deign to go for a long time?” and etc.

These “to the side” remarks are included in the speech of other characters. So, for example, Osip is cunning, realizing the advantage of taking advantage of the created situation. When Anna Andreevna asks him about how many counts and princes his master has (Act III, Appearance 10), he first thinks “to the side”: “What can I say, if now they have fed well, it means that later they will feed them even better.” ”, and then answers “out loud”: “Yes, there are also graphs.”

The judge says “to the side” when he introduces himself to Khlestakov. If he says a few official phrases out loud, then his inner state, the fear that gripped him, the appeal to God - all this is expressed by him in the “to the side” remarks.

Replies “to the side” of officials: Zemlyaniki, Luka Lukich - in act 111 (episode 5), judges, Zemlyaniki - in act V (appearance 7), perfectly reveal the true attitude of officials towards the mayor.

A character conveying direct speech to another character

An extremely interesting comic character to which Gogol repeatedly resorts to direct speech in comedy is the reception of one character transmitting direct speech to another character, and this is not just a mechanical transmission of other people’s words, but a desire, through some condensation, sharpness of transmission, to achieve a more salient characteristic of a person.

For example, Osip in act 11 (appearance 2) conveys to his master the words of the owner of the inn. Osip at this time is generally indignant at the “elist” under his care: by his grace, he is now hungry. He still does not dare to express this in Khlestakov’s eyes, but, conveying the words of the tavern owner, consisting of abuse and threats addressed to Khlestakov, he puts his indignation into them: “You and your master are... swindlers, and your master is a rogue.” etc.

The same Osip, in order to get the best treat, conveys to the mayor’s family a dialogue he has invented with his master, in which he tries to emphasize his concern for himself and his intention to pay tribute to the offender (Act III, Rev. 10).

Or another example: in order to further denigrate the mayor, the merchants who complain about him to Khlestakov turn to the exact transmission of his words. The non-commissioned officer also resorts to this method, conveying the mayor’s words about her husband.

The proximity of solemn official words and vernacular

The comic effect in The Inspector General is created the juxtaposition in the characters’ dialogue of solemn official words, on the one hand, and vernacular words, on the other.

The neighborhood is solemn on one side, and the vastness of the government on the other. words in Act III (appearance 5) - the mayor: “...here, one might say, there is no other thought than to earn the attention of the authorities through decorum and vigilance.” Khlestakov: “Breakfast” was very good. I'm completely stuffed..."

The same comic meaning is found in the juxtaposition of colloquial words with bookish expressions in the speech of the same character, for example, in Khlestakov’s remark: “I love to eat.

After all, you live to pick flowers of pleasure. What was the name of this fish?” (Act III, Rev. 5).

The use of distorted words and expressions in the speech of the characters, for example in Osip’s monologue (act II, scene 1) is also funny.

Stream of emotional words

Comedy is achieved and a stream of emotionally charged words and expressions, such as, for example, the numerous exclamations and questions in the words of Anna Andreevna (end of Act I), or the cascade of abuse of the mayor addressed to the merchants (Act I, appearance 2), or the numerous strong epithets used by officials to address Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky at the end of the comedy .

Selection of visual artistic means, apt, colloquial words.

The comedy is achieved and skillfully selected visual artistic means - hyperboles: “for seven money, a hundred rubles, a watermelon”, “the soup in a saucepan came straight from Paris” (Khlestakov), “there is a chatter in my stomach as if a whole regiment had blown trumpets” (Osip), etc.; comparisons: “Moftoieu is stubborn and stupid as a log” (Khlestakov), “such club-toed bears are knocking their boots” (mayor), etc.; with apt colloquial words: “you’re messing around there” (mayor), “the state council is scolding you” (judge), “you’d be filled with such people that you’d be scratching yourself for four days” (Osip), “now he’s sitting there with his tail curled” (Osip) and etc.

Familiarizing students with a variety of comic techniques is very important, since this information gives them a concrete idea of what the power of laughter in comedy is, and by what technique this laughter is achieved. And if students get acquainted with the words of the teacher and write down at least some of the comic techniques that Gogol mastered so masterfully, they will clearly understand why “The Inspector General” is called a comedy.

4) Gogol’s work on the language of “The Inspector General”

One of the most interesting and useful links for students in learning the language of “The Inspector General” is the analysis of Gogol’s work on the language of his comedy. For this purpose, in the final conversation on comedy, the teacher can include several examples of comparing the final version of the text with an earlier one. The number of examples should not be large, but the quality of the samples should be sufficiently striking.

If the teacher reads at least 2-3 excerpts from the original version and compares them with the familiar text of the comedy with the appropriate comments, the students will understand the direction in which the playwright’s work on the language of comedy went. It is much better and more effective to prepare special posters or use a chalkboard, where the displayed texts are arranged in two columns: to the left is the text of the original edition, to the right is the text of the final edition.

The effect of such observations on a writer’s work is undeniable.

Below are several examples of comparisons between the final edition and the earlier one. The teacher can use these examples at his own discretion.

Example 1.

At the end of the 4th scene of Act I, the mayor, going to meet the auditor, scolds the policeman:

Early edition:

“What did you do with the merchant Chernyaev, huh? “What did you do with the merchant Chernyaev, huh? He gave you two arshins of cloth for your uniform, and you stole the whole thing. You fool, don’t take an example from me! Go!”

Final edition:

What did you do with the merchant Chernyavy, huh? he gave you two arshins of cloth, and you stole the whole thing, look! You're not taking it according to rank! go!

In the above quotes, at the beginning, the words are repeated literally, but at the end, in the watery phrase, there is a significant change: instead of self-exposure, discrediting the city of nothing, there is a famous aphorism that establishes its own figurative hierarchy in bribery.

Example 2.

The mayor boasts to Khlestakov (act III, appearance 5):

Early edition:

“So some people’s heads would turn over: but, thank God, everything is going well, and in 10 years so much has been done for the good of the public cannot be known. If they had deigned to visit our city first, they would have had the worst idea. Of course, someone else, being in my position, would take bribes and thereby make a fortune for themselves, but I have a completely different way of thinking.”

Final edition:

“in a word, the smartest person would be in difficulty, but thank God, everything is going well. Another mayor, of course, would be concerned about his benefits.”

Comparing the two versions of this text, we notice the following changes:

1) The metaphorical phrase “my head would turn over” was replaced by a much clearer and more specific one: “ the smartest man would be in difficulty";

2) the mayor’s lengthy self-praise about how he cares about the city, and contrasting himself with another mayor - the bribe-taker - is replaced by one briefer hint at the other mayor’s care about his benefits.

Example 3.

Khlestakov's words about Pushkin (act III, appearance 6). In an earlier edition we read:

“And how strange they will write Pushkin. Imagine: there is rum in a glass in front of him. the most glorious rum, a bottle worth of rubles, which is saved only for one Austrian emperor, - and then as soon as he starts writing, the pen only: tr. tr. tr. Recently he wrote something to the poet about Cure or Cholera that just made your hair stand on end. Our official went crazy when he read it. On the same day, a carriage came for him and took him to the hospital.

This whole long tirade, which actually spoke about Pushkin, and not about Khlestakov, and also discredited Pushkin, and not Khlestakov, was replaced in the final edition with words that perfectly characterize Khlestakov’s self-praise and lies: “On friendly terms with Pushkin,” etc.

Example 4.

An excerpt from Khlestakov’s dialogue with Anna Andreevna (act III, scene 6) as an example of sharpening speech characteristics characters by introducing foreign words.

Final edition:

Early edition:

Anna Andreevna: “I think you found your journey after the capital very boring?”

Khlestakov: “Extremely boring, you know, having made a habit of living in the world, enjoying all the amenities, and suddenly after that on some bad road.”

Early edition:

Anna Andreevna: “I think the trip after the capital was very unpleasant for you”

Khpestakov: “Extremely unpleasant, accustomed to living, comprenez-vous, in the world and suddenly finding yourself on the road”

In order to ridicule the claims of those talking to flaunt knowledge foreign languages, so characteristic both of the capital’s bureaucratic circles and of provincial city ladies, Gogol introduces into their speech foreign words, and extremely economically, just one word at a time, but the effect is undeniable. Naturally, the teacher can give other examples.

So, a comparison of two editions, early and final, of the same text is clear and convincing evidence of Gogol’s subtle work as a master realist on the language of comedy.

5) The meaning of the comedy “The Inspector General”

Gogol was amazed at how the public received The Inspector General. He wrote to Lepkin: “Everyone is against me. Old and respectable officials shout that nothing is sacred to me, when I dared to talk like that about serving people. The police are against me, the merchants are against me, the writers are against me.”

In his assessment, Gogol was not entirely accurate. Those who were subjected to merciless scourging in the comedy really rebelled against Gogol; even Nikolai 1 correctly understood Gogol’s blow, embodied in his immortal comedy, when he said: “Well, a play! Everyone got it, and I got it the most!” ( "N. V. Gogol about literature”, Goslitizdat, 1952, p. 96).

In The Inspector General, reactionary circles saw a libel against Russia, called the comedy an “empty and stupid farce,” and demanded its ban and removal from the stage.

L. I. Arnoldi ( L. I. Arnoldi - an official under the Kachuga governor, was familiar with Gogol, left his memories of him) in his memoirs about Gogol, he tells how once at a dinner with the Moscow civil governor, one military senator, looking with indignation at Gogol, who was present here, said about him: “After all, this is a revolutionary,” and continued: “I’m surprised, really, how this they let him into decent homes. When I was governor and when his plays were performed in the theater, it was believed that with any stupid joke or some kind of vulgarity, a mockery of the authorities, the entire stalls turned to the governor’s box. I didn’t know what to do, finally I couldn’t stand it and forbade giving his plays. In my province no one dared even think about The Inspector General and his other works" ( S. Danilov, Gogol and theater, 193, p. 193.).

The famous writer S. T. Aksakov in “The Story of My Acquaintance with Gogol” admits: “I myself heard how the famous Count Tolstoy is American ( Giaf Tolstoy is an American - an adventurer, reveler and gambler known for his adventures, ridiculed by Griboyedov in “Woe from Wit”) said at a crowded meeting in the house of the Perfilyevs, who were ardent admirers of Gogol, that he was “an enemy of Russia and that he should be sent in chains to Siberia” ( “Gogol and the memoirs of his contemporaries”, Goslitizdat, 1952, p. 122), and the reactionary F. Wigel ( F. F. Wigel - Director of the Department of Foreign Confessions, an ardent reactionary) writes to the “protective” writer M. Zagoskin about Gogol like this: “Ego young Russia in all its arrogance and cynicism" ( Veresaev, Gogol in life 1933, p. 166.) .

But the progressive public welcomed Gogol’s great comedy, and with it its creator himself.

V. V. Stasov ( V.V. Stasov - outstanding Russian art critic ), a contemporary of Gogol, wrote about the attitude of progressive youth to “The Inspector General”: “Everyone was delighted, like all the youth of that time in general. We then repeated to each other by heart... whole scenes, long conversations from there. At home or at a party, we often had to enter into heated debates with various elderly... people who were indignant at the new idol of youth... The fights were hot and prolonged, but the old people could not change a single trait in us, and our fanatical adoration of Gogol it just grew bigger and bigger" ( Gogol in the memoirs of his contemporaries", 1952, pp. 399-400.) .

The production of The Inspector General was a success both in St. Petersburg and Moscow. The famous Shchepkin wrote to the actor Sosnitsky regarding the Moscow production of The Inspector General: “The audience was amazed at the news, laughed extremely hard, but I expected a much better reception. The ego amazed me extremely; but one acquaintance funnyly explained this reason to me: have mercy, he says, how could it be better received when half the public is taking, and half is giving” ( S. Danilov, Gogol and theatre, 1936, p. 150.) .

This violent reaction of society to comedy is the best confirmation of its enormous socio-political, artistic and educational significance.

Belinsky perfectly defined this meaning in an article about A. Nikitenko in 1842:

“Isn’t all this noise and all these screams the result of the collision of old principles with new ones, aren’t they a battle of two eras?.., only that which divides the opinions and voices of the fiercest, that matures and grows in the struggle, that is affirmed by living victory over living resistance" ( N. K. Piksanov, Gogol the Playwright, 1952, p. 29.) .

The sharp, satirical nature of The Inspector General was emphasized by Herzen: “No one had ever read such a complete course on the pathological anatomy of Russian bureaucracy before him (that is, before Gogol - P. B.)” ( A. G. Gukasova, Comedy “The Inspector General”. In the book. "Gogol at school", 1954, p. 315.).

Gogol's "The Inspector General" is the greatest dramatic work Russian and world literature. An insignificant at first glance comic incident with an imaginary auditor, who frightened city officials and landowners, stirred up the stagnant life of the city and threw a ray of some hope to the disenfranchised urban population, was used by Gogol for unsurpassed comedy genre generalizations of those abuses that were typical of Tsarist Russia of the 1st half of the 19th century V. The author was interested in those life circumstances that could give rise to similar cases, those of her social characters who could take part in it. The special strength of Gogol's genius was reflected in his ability to sharpen and exaggerate social phenomena. At first glance, the very fact that some inconspicuous college registrar was mistaken for an auditor seems exaggerated, unusual, and anecdotal. It also looks exaggerated how the lying “icicle” managed to scare the hardened officials and no one recognized him and how he shamelessly robbed them, but it never occurred to them to expose him. He declares his love to both mother and daughter, and such behavior does not seem strange or insincere to anyone.

The anecdotal incident with the “auditor” occurred in a remote, provincial town, but the typical phenomena of life were captured by Gogol so accurately and accurately that “both the audience and the readers of The Inspector General easily reached broader generalizations, for life was reflected in a drop of swamp water4- Russian pre-reform swamp as a whole" ( "About the Inspector General." SGurnik articles, 1936, p. 115.).

In a comedy, its entire content seems exaggerated, up to and including the silent scene, which in itself represents a moment of greatest hyperbolization. Every detail in the comedy seems implausible, but at the same time the comedy is full of genuine life truth. In this sharpened depiction of life phenomena lies the exceptional power of Gogol’s mastery.

Gogol in The Inspector General exposed the typical phenomena and social characters of his era. “The heroes of The Inspector General are not an invention of the writer’s creative imagination, they are a true snapshot of reality. A critic of the magazine “Rumor”, in an article published in connection with the production at Siena and the first edition of “The Inspector General,” wrote: “The names of the characters from “The Inspector General” turned to the next day proper names: Khlestakovs. Anna Andreevna, Marya Antonovna, mayor, Zemlyaniki, Tyapkin-Lyapkin went arm in arm with Famusov, Molchalin, Chatsky, Prostakov... Look: they, these gentlemen and madams, are walking along Tverskoy Boulevard, in the park, around the city, and everywhere, wherever there are a dozen people, among them there is probably one person from Gogol’s comedy" ( M. B. Khrapchenko, Gogol’s Creativity, 1954, p. 335.).

Gogol created vivid typical generalizations in the heroes of his comedy. Belinsky wrote: “This is what the typism of the image consists of: the poet takes the sharpest, most characteristic features of the faces he depicts, releasing all the random ones that do not contribute to shading their individuality” ( "IN. G. Belinsky about Gogol”, Goslitizdat 1849, p. 138.) .

“The names of Gogol’s heroes have become household names. They began to designate social phenomena of a certain content: “Khlestakovism”, “rags” ( V.V. Vinogradov, Gogol’s language and its significance in the history of the Russian language. In the book. “Gogol at school”, APN, 1954, p. 107.)

For the exceptional power of Glicepius’s satirical depiction of social vices, Gogol was extolled by the revolutionary democrats Belinsky, Chernyshevsky

"The Inspector General" prepared the blossoming national theater, clearing the way for Ostrovsky" ( A. M. Egolin, N. V. Gogol and the liberation movement in Russia, ibid., pp. 31-32.) .

V.I. Lenin repeatedly used the images of the “Inspector General” (Khlestakov, Gorodnichy, Derzhimorda, Osip, Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky, Tryapichkin) and created “a rich and poignant phraseology based on the images of the “Inspector General”: “subject yourself to a non-commissioned officer operation,” “ Khlestakov’s assurances”, “police holdouts” ( V. Vinogradov, Gogol’s language and its significance in the history of the Russian language In the book. “Gogol at school”, 1954, p. 108.) .

Gogol was not a revolutionary; he believed in the power of existing state laws, attached great importance to education, and thought about educating and correcting people through stage exposure. But Gogol’s comedy had and has enormous revolutionary significance: the corporation of people brought on stage was so vicious that it was no longer possible to correct it, and this is because it itself was vicious government system, therefore objectively the force Gogol's comedy not in a call for correction, but in exposure, and not of individual people, but of the entire system.

Playwrights of both pre-revolutionary and Soviet literature learned and are learning from Gogol the skill of depicting life’s contradictions and merciless flagellation of social times.

We need Gogol's satire: it helps to root out from our lives the social relics of the past that still nest in it: bribery, embezzlement, sycophancy, bureaucracy, ignorance, etc.

In conclusion, the teacher should say at least a few words about the embodiment of “The Inspector General” on stage. The first performance of Gogol's immortal comedy took place on April 19, 1836. on the stage of the Alexandria Theater in St. Petersburg. In the same year, on May 25, “The Inspector General” was staged for the first time in Moscow, on the stage of the Maly Theater.

Sosnitsky was an excellent performer of the role of the mayor in the very first productions - in Alexandria Theater, Shchepkin - in Maly. Since then, the victorious march of Gogol's comedy began on stages both in the capital and in the provinces, both in Russia and abroad, right up to the present day.

The teacher can tell students about one unforgettable performance that took place in St. Petersburg on April 14, 1860. “The Inspector General” was staged, and the entire proceeds from the performance were transferred to the literary fund, that is, to the fund of the society for benefits to needy writers and scientists. In the play, the roles were played not by professional actors, but by well-known writers of that time, for example: mayor - Pisemsky, Shpekin - Dostoevsky, Khlestakov - poet-translator Weinberg, merchants - Turgenev, Kraevsky, Grigorovich, Maikov, Druzhinin, Kurochkin. All the performers of the play were a huge success, and the appearance of the merchants on stage caused such an ovation from the audience that Weinberg, who played Khlestakov, stepped aside and sat on a chair, waiting for the end of the ovation

It is advisable to accompany work on the comedy “The Inspector General” by showing, either in class or during extracurricular hours, various visual aids: title page and pages of the first edition, drawings for “The Inspector General” by Boklevsky, Kardovsky, Konstantinovsky, posters of the first performances of the comedy, photographs of major actors in comedy roles, etc.

Students need to name and show outstanding actors in different roles in the comedy “The Inspector General”:

The Mayor - performed by Davydov (Aleksandrinsky Theatre), Moskvin (Moscow Art Theatre), S. Kuznetsov, Rybakov, Yakovlev (Maly Theatre);

Khlestakov - performed by Yakovlev (Maly Theater - production 1909), I. Ilyinsky (Maly Theater, production 1949);

Osip-Varlamov (Alexandrinsky Theater), Gribunin (Moscow Art Theater);

Anna Andreevna - Pashennaya (Maly Theatre);

Marya Antonovna - Savina (Alexandrinsky Theater).

Poshlepkina - Sadovskaya (Maly Theatre) Korchagina-Alexandrovskaya (Leningrad Drama Theatre).

In the process of studying “The Inspector General” or at the end of it, students should be taken to a comedy production in the theater or to a film, followed by discussion of them in class or in a circle lesson.

If time and working conditions permit, it is very advisable to attract final lesson or in an out-of-class event, Gogol’s “Theatrical Travel,” where the great satirist clearly showed the reaction of various sections of the public to his comedy, the misunderstanding of it by many spectators, and clarified the role of laughter in it. The innermost thoughts of Gogol, who perfectly understood the importance of theater and true realistic comedy, who knew how to sensitively listen to the feedback from various layers of viewers about his comedy, are such material that convincingly clarifies the literary place and ideological and artistic significance of the great comedy.

In the classroom, naturally, there is no opportunity or need to dwell in detail on the “Theatrical Travel”; it is enough to introduce students to general structure this work and read some of the most characteristic passages from it.

After the performance of the comedy, the audience who attended the performance leaves. She passes by the author of the play, who “escaped as if from a whirlpool” from the auditorium and remained in the hallway in order to hear the opinions of the audience about the performance they watched.

The author hears various reviews from the passing public. Many people criticize the play and find all sorts of flaws in it. In the presented play, “low people” are introduced, “the most flat jokes” are allowed, “the plot is incredible”, “all the inconsistencies: no plot, no action, no considerations of any kind”, the language of the play is such that they are not spoken in high society, “there is not a single true face, all are caricatures,” the play contains a “disgusting mockery of Russia,” this work is unsatisfactory in educational terms: “all the vices and vices... what an example does this set for the audience,” there are no attractive faces in the comedy, "there is not one honest man, this kind of play coarsens morals, destroys all respect for people, there is a lot of absurdity and incredible things in the play: where could such an incident happen? condemnation and abuse rain down on the head of the comedy author. You can even hear exclamations: “For such things you need to be flogged...” And others, perhaps, even think: “for such a comedy you should be sent to Nerchinsk...”

But not all the public shares such opinions. This chorus of reactionary-minded viewers is cut through by fresh, progressive voices belonging to more progressive, developed viewers.

“Yes, if we take the plot in the sense that it is usually taken, that is, in the sense of a love affair, then it definitely doesn’t exist. But, it seems, it’s time to stop relying so far on this eternal tie... Don’t people now have more rank, money capital, and a profitable marriage than love?” says one of the “art lovers.”

This same “art lover” further discusses educational role negative characters comedy: “Doesn’t everyone, down to the slightest bend in the soul of a vile and dishonest person, already paint the image of an honest person? Doesn’t all this accumulation of baseness, deviations from laws and justice already make it clear what law, duty and justice require of us?”

"A very modestly dressed man" clearly understands positive value ridiculing social vices: “In it, it seems to me, hypocrisy is most strongly and deeply affected by laughter - a decent mask, under which baseness and meanness are revealed; a rogue making the face of a well-meaning man.”

Mr. B. has a positive assessment of the open ridicule of vices and social wounds in the comedy. Disagreeing with Mr. P., who suggests that the bad should be “hidden, not shown,” Mr. B. develops his thoughts this way: “In your opinion, it would only be necessary to close, heal Somehow, on the outside, these, as you call, social wounds, as long as they are not visible for now, and let the disease rage inside - there is no need for that... There is no need that it can explode and be revealed by such symptoms, when everything is already treatment is late, cold selfishness moves the lips, which also utter speeches, and not the saint, pure love to humanity."

“I’m sorry,” he admits bitterly, “that no one noticed honest person, who was in my play. Yes, there was one honest thing, noble face, acting in her throughout her entire continuation. This honest, noble face was full of laughter.”

He goes on to explain the nature of this laughter. This “is not the kind of laughter that is generated by temporary irritability, a bilious, painful disposition of character; It is also not that light laughter that serves for idle entertainment and amusement of people, but that laughter that flows entirely from the bright nature of man.” This “laughter is bright.” Only one deeply kind soul can laugh with such a “kind, bright laughter.”

The author was especially upset by the fact that many of the audience did not understand this comedy and called such comedies “fables.” Is it possible to call immortal works"fables?" They live, although “centuries have passed, cities and peoples have been demolished and disappeared from the face of the earth.” The cleansing and revitalizing power of such works is great. “The world would fall asleep without such fables, life would become shallow, souls would be covered with mold and mud.”