Comparative characteristics of Akaki Akakievich and a significant person. "Overcoat" main characters

Gogol's story "The Overcoat" has been and remains the object of a variety of interpretations in the works of Italian researchers - from articles by K. Rebor (1922) and L. Ganchikov (1954) to the meaningful "Preface" to the translation of the story by C. De Michelis and comments by translator N. Marchialis (1991)

The identified aspects do not exhaust the semantics of the story. I do not touch upon more general problems - such as specific phraseology at the basis of textual fabric, special artistic modeling of time and space, cultural memory, etc. I emphasize that these are only the first approaches to the topic, and not an exhaustive study of it.

1. The title of the story and its three heroes.

It is generally accepted that in “The Overcoat” there is only one hero (text subject) - Akaki Akakievich. In this case, one would expect his name to appear in the title of the story. This is not the case - partly, perhaps, because in “The Overcoat” there are not one, but three heroes: Akakiy Akakievich Bashmachkin, Petrovich and significant person. The last two receive less description, but they also have their place. The title contains the name of the item - “Overcoat”, and it has a metonymic and plot connection with all three characters: Bashmachkin orders a new overcoat, Petrovich sews it, significant person avoids searching for the stolen overcoat and loses his own. This first level of plot relatedness of the three text subjects corresponds to their deep connectedness, and outside of it, it seems, the theme of the man in “The Overcoat” can only be understood one-sidedly. All the details are important here. Let's note the main ones, following the points of an imaginary questionnaire.

Name: always named by name and patronymic Akakiy Akakievich (hereinafter - A.A.), commoner Petrovich - only by patronymic (although he has the name Grigory); at significant person Strictly speaking, there is no name, although it is mentioned once, in a friendly conversation with a friend, but cannot serve for final identification: ““So-and-so, Ivan Abramovich!” - “So-and-so, Stepan Varlamovich!”” (III, 165; in the following, after the quote, we give only the page number; the bold font in the quotes is mine. K.S.).

Occupation: Bashmachkin and significant person- civil servants, Petrovich - artisan, private entrepreneur.

Note that in both cases Petrovich occupies a middle position on the conventional parametric scale, and his characterization in the microplot of “sewing an overcoat” falls in the middle of the work.

With the introduction of social and personal parameters, new traits appear in the heroes. Thus, the deformation of Bashmachkin’s personality is determined by the fact that his socialization can be defined as professional: “... he, apparently, was born into the world completely ready, in a uniform and with a bald spot on his head”; “eternal titular adviser” (pp. 141, 143). And this almost completely defines the essence of the hero. Neither his appearance nor his behavior in situations not provided for by his profession contribute to his complete identification - for example, at a party of officials, he “simply did not know what to do, where to put his arms, legs and his whole figure...” (p. 160 ), - neither the unique world of feelings and thoughts not related to the profession, nor speech that verbalizes everyday life. The deformation of A.A.’s personality also manifests itself in two hyperbolic and contrasting aspects. At first he is shown as a quiet, timid, obedient creature, the ideal embodiment of the type of ascetic employee, dutifully fulfilling his duties and completely immersed in the pleasant and multifaceted world of letters, in their copying. This makes him a stranger to officials and completely different from others. When his passion for the form of letters is replaced by a passion for a new overcoat, that is, for his own form (appearance), he equally one-sidedly and hyperbolically acquires the properties of “hierarchical” behavior (an indicator is that the old overcoat, when compared with the new one, evokes in him the same laughter that she had previously caused among his colleagues). And this new model of behavior undoubtedly comes into conflict with his inner nature and character.

Personality deformation significant person determined by its internal duality. The status of a high-ranking civil servant requires him to have the appearance of a strict boss and scold his subordinates with forever memorized words: “Do you know to whom you are saying this? Do you understand who is standing in front of you? do you understand this, do you understand this? I’m asking you” (p. 165). Although it is usually called significant person and his “rank of general” is mentioned twice, but he does not have an individual appearance, “his own face”. At the same time, outside of his social role, the general appears completely differently: meeting with an old friend, he “talked very, very cheerfully,” and with “his equals, he was still a proper person, a very decent person<...>Compassion was not alien to him; many good movements were accessible to his heart, despite the fact that his rank very often prevented them from being discovered” (pp. 165, 171).

Duality is also inherent in Petrovich’s personality. Each of his social roles corresponds to a specific name: having become a St. Petersburg artisan, he replaced his name Grigory with his patronymic nickname Petrovich. In a sober state, he follows the tailor’s model of behavior, however, true to his “grandfather’s customs,” he likes to drink, and after drinking, he again becomes Gregory, “accommodating” and helpful (pp. 148, 152).

All three heroes are open to both good and evil (Petrovich, however, is considered by many researchers, from J. Mann to M. Weiskopf, to be a demon-tempter), but good and rank/social role turn out to be incompatible.

2. Semantics of repetition.

In the text of “The Overcoat,” attention is drawn to numerous repetitions relating to A.A. and other characters. Here are some of them.

a) Repeat the name. In the scene when “the deceased mother, an official and a very good woman, settled down to christen the child properly,” the very choice of name with the help of fortune telling turns out to be fateful: “Well, I see,” said the old woman, “that apparently he is so fate. If so, let him be better called like his father. The father was Akaki, so let the son be Akaki” (p. 142). That is, the child’s name “repeats” the father’s name, and, as has been repeatedly noted, the name of St. Akaki of Sinai, it “doubles” in the patronymic, also doubling the manic-hyperbolic and synecdochically-one-sided imitation of its homonymous counterparts. This reveals the double “socio-genetic code” of A.A. - an official by birth (the son of an official and an official), at the same time submissive and humble (Greek “innocent”, “kindly”, “obedient”).

b) Repetition of the hero’s “way of existence”: “No matter how many directors and various bosses changed, everyone saw him in the same place, in the same position, in the same position, as the same official for writing...” (with . 143). The implementation of “genetic codes” consists in repeating the same situation, which is determined not by “rank” (a ninth-grade official should not remain a simple scribe), but by Bashmachkin’s humble desire to live in his blissful world as a scribe.

c) Repetition as the basis of the “profession”, which consists in the automatic reproduction of what has already been created and even written. Here, of course, the most significant case is when the hero is offered “from a ready-made job... to make some kind of relation to another public place” and just “change... the title and change the verbs here and there from the first person to the third ”(pp. 144-145), and he turns out to be unable to make these changes. At the same time, the same mechanism of replacing personality with “non-personality” (Benveniste) is triggered, which deprives A.A. of the opportunity to identify himself with the writing “I” and, at least through rewriting, become part of someone else’s (important) existence, but sometimes “he filmed on purpose, for one’s own pleasure, a copy for oneself, especially if the paper was remarkable not for the beauty of the style, but for its address to some new or important person” (p. 145).

The life of the remaining officials is also described as a series of repetitions: they freeze like puppets in their “hierarchical” statuses, with their constant habits, as a rule, mechanically repeating the same actions in departments, the same entertainment after work, day after day, the same jokes and gossip. Automatism as sterility, time as a bad repetition that does not distinguish between past, present and future, that is, that which opposes the very concept of life, obviously constitute the semantic content of these repetitions. But at the same time, it is precisely this automatism that protects officials from any possibility of internal conflicts. In contrast, A.A. turns out to be more vulnerable due to his simple, almost infantile imagination, since he built his varied and satisfying, but at the same time even narrower and hermetically sealed world through copying letters.

Countless repetitions permeate the text, making up its texture. The frequent use of circumstances is indicative usually, as usual, as usual, always and, against this background, antonymous to them never, for the first time and under.

One of the significant textual repetitions is the nomination brother in relation to officials, thereby uniting them into one family. This repetition has a more complex semantics and textual load in the fragment where the influence of A.A. on a certain “young man” is described: “And for a long time later, among the most cheerful moments, a low official with a bald spot on his forehead appeared to him, with his penetrating words: “Leave me, why are you offending me?” - and in these penetrating words other words rang: “I am your brother.” And the poor young man covered himself with his hand, and many times later he shuddered throughout his life...” (p. 144). Word Brother with its double semantics (“ our brother official" and Brother with evangelical connotations) becomes a mediator between the suffocating world of bureaucracy and a world where people are endowed with compassion and mercy.

Of the other repetitions essential to the meaning and structure of “The Overcoat,” we point out the word shoe. It is the basis of the hero’s surname (here, by the way, there is a reference to shoe, and from him - through Zhukovsky’s ballad “Svetlana” - another semantic move to the theme of ritual, fortune telling, fate). The “genetic code” is confirmed by the “multiplication of entities” - the mention of numerous Bashmachkins with their common ancestral habits: “And father, and grandfather, and even brother-in-law, and all completely Bashmachkins walked in boots, changing the soles only three times a year” (p. 142 ). Shoe is also present in the image of “some beautiful woman who took off her shoe, thus exposing her entire leg, a very pretty one” (p. 159). And finally, after A.A.’s robbery, the “old woman, the owner of the apartment” meets him with “a shoe on only one foot” (p. 162). These episodes are significant for Bashmachkin’s own line, acting as its semiotic markers. Shoe connects A.A. and two women, let’s say, of different morality (patriarchal and newfangled), they correspond, relatively speaking, with the old Bashmachkin and the new, reborn one, connected with the old and new overcoat.

Thus we move on to the main repetition - two overcoats of Bashmachkin. “The Overcoat,” as has been repeatedly noted, is clearly related to the theme of women. While A.A. was walking around in an old overcoat (hood), “young officials made fun of him” and told stories “about his mistress, a seventy-year-old old woman, they said that she beat him, they asked when their wedding would take place...” (with . 143). From the moment the “eternal idea of ​​a future overcoat” appeared, even “his existence became somehow fuller, as if he had gotten married<...>as if he was not alone, but some pleasant friend of life agreed with him to walk life’s path together - and this friend was none other than the same overcoat with thick cotton wool, on a strong lining without wear and tear” (p. 154) .

Which of the overcoats corresponds to Bashmachkin’s character, which of them corresponds to what could be considered his “individuality”? The legitimacy of posing such a question is obvious, since clothing not only determines the appearance, but also shapes the personality, the inner “I”. The new overcoat noticeably changes A.A.’s behavior. The dream of it leads to the fact that “the most daring and courageous thoughts even flashed in my head: should I really put a marten on my collar? Thinking about this almost made him absent-minded. Once, while rewriting a paper, he almost made a mistake...” (p. 155). In the new overcoat, he becomes more cheerful, contented, more relaxed - after all, the “new girlfriend” metonymically transfers to the owner the idea of ​​“an official like everyone else,” and therefore the words are no longer imaginable for him: “Why are you offending me?” Her loss reveals the features of a ripening conflict with society: now A.A. “screams”, although he always spoke in a “quiet voice”, threatens the clerks, trying to get them to allow him to see the private bailiff, neglects his duties, finally gets there, violating all subordination , to the most significant person.

3. The principle of mirror symmetry.

The last part of “The Overcoat” is built on this principle, in which A.A. was destined to “live noisily for several days after his death, as if as a reward for a life not noticed by anyone” (p. 169). And what happened to him also happens to significant person in approximately the same sequence: A.A. in a new overcoat goes to a party to the official - having learned about the death of A.A., one thing significant person, "wishing... have fun... went out for the evening"(p. ??) to a friend; both drink champagne - A.A. two glasses, A significant person two glasses; then A.A. “suddenly ran up, no one knows why, for some lady"(p. 160) - significant person“I decided not to go home yet, but to stop by one lady I know"(p. 161); after the general’s “scolding” A.A. “walked through the blizzard<...> wind, according to St. Petersburg custom, blew on him from all four sides...” (p. 161) - significant person impetuous wind, which<...>so he cut him in the face, throwing scraps of snow there, flapping his greatcoat collar like a sail, or suddenly throwing it on his head with unnatural force and thus delivering eternal troubles get out of it” (p. 167). And finally both are grabbed by the collar, both of them are stripped of their overcoat. “But the overcoat is mine!” - says the robber in a “thundering voice” A. A. (p. 161) - “... it’s your overcoat that I need! Not bothered about mine, and even scolded me...” (p. 172), - he “sees” such a remark from the ghost (but does not hear!) significant person. And if A. A., " so it measured"(p. 167) from the shout of a significant person, then "poor significant person almost died"from the words of a dead man (p. 172). It is not surprising that both, after losing their overcoat, are returning home in complete horror and deplorable condition, while the repetition is given at the lexical level: A. A. “ran home in complete disarray: hair<...>completely disheveled; the side and chest and all the trousers were covered in snow<...> sadly wandered to his room, and how he spent the night there, it is left to the one who can somewhat imagine the situation of the other to judge” (p. 162). Significant person returned home " pale, frightened and without an overcoat<...>somehow trudged to his room and spent the night in great disarray"(p. 173).

What did both officials lose as a result? Of course, not only things, but also some kind of symbol of hierarchical status. In the motif of the blizzard and the wind there seems to be an image of metaphorical retribution - “reproach” (“cut with a word” - the wind “cuts the face”). The wind gives rise to “eternal troubles”, it “rips off masks”, like the night avenger, “tearing off all sorts of overcoats from everyone’s shoulders, without considering rank and title...” (p. 169). But if we assume that only gossip and fear make residents see the dead thief at night in as an official, then symbolically the act of taking off the overcoat is a sign of liberation. Retribution turns into mercy, and the wind turns into the triumph of another, higher principle and another judgment. With “unnatural force,” the cosmic element, “suddenly snatched from God knows where,” acts as a sign sent from above of the need for the moral awakening of man.

It is unlikely that Petrovich would have gotten into this story, before whom the abyss is only opening up, dividing “tailors who only add linings and forward, from those who sew again” (p. ???). For significant person and for A.A. the outcome turned out to be different. The general’s behavior changed significantly: “He even began to say to his subordinates much less often: “How dare you, do you understand who is in front of you?”; if he did say it, it was not before he had first heard what the matter was” (p. 173). Note that the behavior of the young official, imbued with unexpected pity and compassion for A.A., changes just as sharply: “... and since then it’s as if everything has changed in front of him and appeared in a different form"(p. 144). The similarity is emphasized by the mirror repetition of the vision: to the young man “ for a long time afterwards... I introduced myself... a low official... with his penetrating words,” and significant person « almost every day I imagined... pale Akaki Akakievich, who could not stand the official scolding” (p. 144, ???). Just as the young man was able to “imagine the situation of another,” so, finally, significant person after what happened to him, he was able to “get into another skin,” that is, put himself in A.A.’s place. As for the latter, everything ends tragically for him: is it not because the “general’s overcoat” is incompatible with his human essence, but for a creature “protected by no one, dear to no one, not interesting to anyone” (p. 169), according to some inhuman logic, has no place on earth? Or “the St. Petersburg climate is to blame” (p. 147), which, together with the “hood” that does not save from the cold, and the state of despair, brings A.A. to collapse, turning hood V kaput?

4. Semantics of blurriness and relativity.

In “The Overcoat” a very special role belongs to the elements - wind and frost. Their semantics is ambivalent: being “strong enemies” of poor officials, they become the cause of A.A.’s death, but at the same time they also carry out retribution for the hero. The narrator deliberately “casts a fog” and often seems to abandon his authoritative role (in such phrases as if I remember well, if my memory does not fail me), indicates his incompetence: “What exactly and what was the position significant person, this remains unknown to this day” (p. 164). The principle of deliberate “blurring” was also reflected in the image of St. Petersburg. In the printed text, Gogol removes the real names of streets and squares, recorded in drafts, and stipulates the absence of toponyms (“... memory begins to greatly betray us, and everything that is in St. Petersburg, all the streets and houses, merged and mixed up so in our heads, that it is very difficult to get something from there in a decent form” (p. 158). This principle, it seems, also has its own semantics. Because of such uncertainty, the city appears as if hidden in a fog, behind which it is impossible to distinguish either people or people. houses, streets and squares, and turns into a vision. Under the influence of the “cosmic” elements of rain and wind, Petersburg, covered with the breath of death, corresponds to the invariant of the “Petersburg text”, highlighted by V. N. Toporov. - “a powerful polyphonic resonant space, in the vibrations of which the syncopations of Russian history and the chilling evil “noises” of time have long been heard.” The text “warned of danger, and we cannot help but assume that it also has a saving function.” The key opposition that sets the meaning of this escheated place is conveyed by the aphorism “where there is danger, there is salvation,” and here death implies spiritual rebirth, and event sequence- providential logic. The narrator in such a landscape is assigned the role of a “mystagogue”, reminiscent of the absolute Christian imperative of saving the soul and the relativity of existence. The discussion about “one significant person", which only "recently became significant face, and before that time he was insignificant face. However, - the narrator adds, - his place was not revered even now significant in comparison with others, yet the most significant. But there will always be a circle of people for whom minor in the eyes of others there is already significant"(p. 164). This is illustrated by the story of how a certain titular councilor, having become “the ruler of some separate small office, immediately fenced off a special room for himself<...>and placed some ushers at the door<...>who took hold of the door handle and opened it to everyone who came..." (p. 164). Significance turns out to be apparent, and the ritual of receiving a visitor is a theatrical performance, testifying to the imaginary nature of the surrounding hierarchical world, where everyone is constantly busy imitating their superiors and thereby demonstrating their own importance: “So in Holy Rus' everything is infected with imitation, everyone teases and makes faces at his boss” ( p. 164). That is, what presents itself as stable, structurally defined, significant, in the soteriological perspective of Christian redemption and salvation is not so. Moreover, the manifestation importance inseparable from the humiliation and humiliation of those of lower rank. So, significant person, receiving A.A., complains: “... what kind of riot has spread among young people against their bosses and superiors!” - and deliberately does not notice that A.A. “has already reached fifty years” and “therefore, if he could call himself a young man, then only relatively..." (p. 167). In life, the very concept of authority is relative: in “The Overcoat” there is a distinction between “being authoritative” and “having authority”, authority “internal” (interiorized by the individual “voice of duty”, “conscience”), “external” (generated by the regulation of relations of power and subordination ) and “anonymous” (rooted in the collective unconscious). The symbol of the latter in “The Overcoat” is the general’s face depicted on Petrovich’s snuff box, which “was pierced with a finger and then sealed with a quadrangular piece of paper” (p. 150). For Petrovich, this is a reminder that he is now a free man and does not depend on any “authority”; for A.A., the image of the general is fraught with a threat, which makes the official’s mind cloudy.

Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol is one of the most significant figures in Russian literature. It is he who is rightly called the founder of critical realism, the author who clearly described the image of “ little man"and made it central in Russian literature of that time. Subsequently, many writers used this image in their works. It is no coincidence that F. M. Dostoevsky uttered the phrase in one of his conversations: “We all came out of Gogol’s overcoat.”

History of creation

Literary critic Annenkov noted that N.V. Gogol often listened to jokes and various stories that were told in his circle. Sometimes it happened that these anecdotes and comical stories inspired the writer to create new works. This happened with “Overcoat”. According to Annenkov, Gogol once heard a joke about a poor official who was very fond of hunting. This official lived in deprivation, saving on everything just to buy himself a gun for his favorite hobby. And now, the long-awaited moment has arrived - the gun has been purchased. However, the first hunt was not successful: the gun got caught in the bushes and sank. The official was so shocked by the incident that he came down with a fever. This anecdote did not make Gogol laugh at all, but, on the contrary, gave rise to serious thoughts. According to many, it was then that the idea of ​​writing the story “The Overcoat” arose in his head.

During Gogol's lifetime, the story did not provoke significant critical discussions and debates. This is due to the fact that at that time writers quite often offered their readers comic works about the life of poor officials. However, the significance of Gogol’s work for Russian literature was appreciated over the years. It was Gogol who developed the theme of the “little man” protesting against the laws in force in the system, and pushed other writers to further explore this theme.

Description of the work

Main character Gogol's work- junior civil servant Bashmachkin Akakiy Akakievich, who was constantly unlucky. Even when choosing a name, the official’s parents were unsuccessful; in the end, the child was named after his father.

The life of the main character is modest and unremarkable. He lives in a small rented apartment. He occupies a minor position with a meager salary. By adulthood, the official never acquired a wife, children, or friends.

Bashmachkin wears an old faded uniform and a holey overcoat. One day, severe frost forces Akaki Akakievich to take his old overcoat to a tailor for repairs. However, the tailor refuses to repair the old overcoat and says it is necessary to buy a new one.

The price of an overcoat is 80 rubles. This is a lot of money for a small employee. In order to collect the necessary amount, he denies himself even small human joys, of which there are not many in his life. After some time, the official manages to save the required amount, and the tailor finally sews the overcoat. The acquisition of an expensive item of clothing is a grandiose event in the miserable and boring life of an official.

One evening, Akaki Akakievich was caught up on the street by unknown people and his overcoat was taken away. The upset official goes with a complaint to a “significant person” in the hope of finding and punishing those responsible for his misfortune. However, the “general” does not support the junior employee, but, on the contrary, reprimands him. Bashmachkin, rejected and humiliated, was unable to cope with his grief and died.

At the end of the work, the author adds a little mysticism. After the funeral of the titular councilor, a ghost began to be noticed in the city, which took overcoats from passers-by. A little later, this same ghost took the overcoat from that same “general” who scolded Akaki Akakievich. This served as a lesson for the important official.

Main characters

The central figure of the story is a pathetic civil servant who has been doing routine and uninteresting work all his life. His work lacks opportunities for creativity and self-realization. Monotony and monotony literally consume the titular adviser. All he does is rewrite papers that no one needs. The hero has no loved ones. He spends his free evenings at home, sometimes copying papers “for himself.” The appearance of Akaki Akakievich creates an even stronger effect; the hero becomes truly sorry. There is something insignificant in his image. The impression is strengthened by Gogol's story about the constant troubles befalling the hero (either an unfortunate name, or baptism). Gogol perfectly created the image of a “little” official who lives in terrible hardships and fights the system every day for his right to exist.

Officials (collective image of bureaucracy)

Gogol, talking about Akaki Akakievich’s colleagues, focuses on such qualities as heartlessness and callousness. The unfortunate official's colleagues mock and make fun of him in every possible way, without feeling an ounce of sympathy. The whole drama of Bashmachkin’s relationship with his colleagues is contained in the phrase he said: “Leave me alone, why are you offending me?”

"Significant person" or "general"

Gogol does not mention either the first or last name of this person. Yes, it doesn’t matter. Rank and position on the social ladder are important. After the loss of his overcoat, Bashmachkin, for the first time in his life, decides to defend his rights and goes with a complaint to the “general”. Here the “little” official is faced with a tough, soulless bureaucratic machine, the image of which is contained in the character of a “significant person”.

Analysis of the work

In the person of his main character, Gogol seems to unite all the poor and humiliated people. Bashmachkin's life is an eternal struggle for survival, poverty and monotony. Society with its laws does not give the official the right to a normal human existence and humiliates his dignity. At the same time, Akaki Akakievich himself agrees with this situation and resignedly endures hardships and difficulties.

The loss of the overcoat is a turning point in the work. It forces the “little official” to declare his rights to society for the first time. Akaki Akakievich goes with a complaint to a “significant person”, who in Gogol’s story personifies all the soullessness and impersonality of the bureaucracy. Having encountered a wall of aggression and misunderstanding on the part of a “significant person,” the poor official cannot stand it and dies.

Gogol raises the problem of the extreme significance of the rank, which took place in the society of that time. The author shows that such attachment to rank is destructive for people with very different social status. The prestigious position of a “significant person” made him indifferent and cruel. And Bashmachkin’s junior rank led to the depersonalization of a person, his humiliation.

At the end of the story, it is no coincidence that Gogol introduces a fantastic ending, in which the ghost of an unfortunate official takes off the general’s overcoat. This is some warning to important people that their inhumane actions may have consequences. The fantasy at the end of the work is explained by the fact that in the Russian reality of that time it is almost impossible to imagine a situation of retribution. Since the “little man” at that time had no rights, he could not demand attention and respect from society.

A significant person in Gogol's story “The Overcoat” is a collective image. The author sought to convey the phenomenon more than to describe a specific person, and therefore did not give him individual traits or a name. Its essence is an official, placed above everyone within the department, which the writer also presented as a kind of averaged collective image without an official name.

Having sketched out the strokes to create the external background, Gogol draws all the reader’s attention to central character- Akakiy Akakievich Bashmachkin, titular adviser of that very department.

Characteristics

(Soviet illustrator Savva Brodsky "At a Significant Person")

About how main character the story from its very birth occupies its allotted place in life, the writer tells at the very beginning of the story. He meticulously paints a portrait of a kind but timid man, an ideal subordinate and incapable of showing a modicum of initiative except in a completely hopeless situation.

Bashmachkin’s meeting with a significant person is also forced. In the office, where 10 officials served under his command, the Significant Person was a very important person in the rank of general. Who better than a boss to take care of less important and significant employees? But, no.

(Ignatiev Yu.M., illustration “Bashmachkin in front of a significant person”, 1970)

According to the author, the general could only afford to show intelligence and decency in a society of equals. If he had to deal with a person of any lower rank or social status, he preferred to remain silent. And if he did speak, as in the case when Akaky Akakievich turned to him for help, he tried not to listen to the person, not to delve into his problem, but once again (and louder) to remind him of his own sky-high status: “Do you know, Who are you telling this to? Do you understand who is standing in front of you? ... I’m asking you.”

Gentle with his wife, good-natured towards his own children, witty in his interactions with friends, he was instantly transformed if he happened to find himself in the company of ordinary people. And only the death of the person to whom he refused the slightest help made him reconsider his behavior a little. After all, now he was making his favorite speech: “How dare you...” after he found out what brought the petitioner to him.

Image in the work

(Georgy Teikh as a Significant Person and Rolan Bykov as Bashmachkin, film "The Overcoat", 1959)

A significant person does not arouse sympathy, but does not arouse respect either. The author does not mention a word about how and for what merits the general was awarded his rank. Disdain for people for no reason other than theirs social status or rank, does not show an intelligent and energetic leader. Yes and in family life There is something to reproach a significant person for. Having a prosperous marriage, he considered it acceptable, without hiding, to visit his mistress Karolina Ivanovna.

Would Akaki Akakievich’s fate have turned out differently if an official of a completely different character had been in the general’s chair? Undoubtedly. Demonstrated (albeit inactive) participation could force this person to fight injustice and look for a way out. The general not only did not listen, but, on the contrary, frightened Bashmachkin so much that the guards “carried out almost without moving” the morally destroyed man.

In the work "The Overcoat" the heroes are mostly faceless, with the exception of the main character - the titular adviser named Bashmachkin, a man without character, gray, incapable of action. The theme of the “little man” is not new in literature, but in the story it is revealed in a unique and profound way. In Gogol's works, the description of the heroes is extremely important, because behind every name and word there is a deep inner meaning. For the main character, the overcoat is a dream come true, the meaning of life. With her appearance, the hero changes not only externally, but also internally.

Characteristics of the heroes "Overcoat"

Main characters

Minor characters

The story raises issues of indifference, immorality, poverty, and bureaucracy. Petersburg is shown as a cold city, ruled by stupidity, disorder and tyranny. The central image of the official Bashmachkin develops in parallel with the image of the overcoat itself. The names of the characters in “The Overcoat” are practically not mentioned, which gives the era described the effect of facelessness. Gogol treats the characterization of the heroes of the story with extreme scrupulousness, masterfully, and irony. The work was included in the list of the most “revolutionary” in literary world thanks to the vision of life of a brilliant writer.