home › Crash Test Auto › Entrepreneur in Russian classics. Charming literary swindlers Images of swindlers in classical Russian literature

Entrepreneur in Russian classics. Charming literary swindlers Images of swindlers in classical Russian literature

Russian culture of the middle of the century is beginning to be attracted by the themes of marriage scams - plots that have spread in society due to the emergence of enterprising people with character, ambitions, but lacking generic means for the realization of desires. The heroes of Ostrovsky and Pisemsky are not alike in their demands for the world, but they are united in their chosen means: in order to improve their financial situation, they do not stop at annoying torments of conscience, they fight for existence, compensating for the inferiority of their social status with hypocrisy. The ethical side of the issue worries the authors only to the extent that all parties to the conflict are punished. There are no obvious casualties here; money of one group of characters and activity of the seeker "lucrative place" in life, whether it be a marriage or a new service, are equally immoral. The plot of family-domestic commerce excludes a hint of compassion for the victim, it simply cannot be where financial conflicts are resolved and the results in the end equally suit everyone.

Ostrovsky plunges the reader into the exotic life of the merchant class, commenting on the themes of previous literature with the help of farce. In the play “Poverty is not a vice”, the problem of fathers and children is completely mediated by monetary relations, the images of noble unhappy brides are accompanied by frank conversations about dowry (“Guilty Without Guilt”). Without much sentimentality and frankly, the characters discuss financial problems, all kinds of matchmakers willingly arrange weddings, seekers of rich hands walk around the living rooms, trade and marriage deals are discussed. Already the titles of the playwright's works - "There was not a penny, but suddenly Altyn", "Bankrupt", "Mad money", "Profitable place" - indicate a change in the vector of cultural development of the phenomenon of money, offer various ways to strengthen social position. More radical recommendations are discussed in Shchedrin's Diary of a Provincial in St. Petersburg, the fourth chapter of which presents a picturesque catalog of enrichment options. Stories about people who have achieved wealth are framed by the dream genre, which allows one to imagine human enterprise without false social modesty and bypassing pathetic assessments: "black-haired" that prays so earnestly to God before dinner, “He took away his mother’s estate from his own son”, brought sweets from Moscow to his other aunt, and “She, having eaten them, gave her soul to God in two hours”, the third financial fraud with peasant serfs "arranged in the best possible way", With remained a profit. The author needed the diabolical phantasmagoria of sleep in order to avoid edification and reveal the universal law of life: “We rob - without shame, and if anything upsets us in such financial transactions, then this is only a failure. The operation was a success - use it for you, good fellow! failed - razin!

In the "Diary of a provincial ..." one can feel the following trends that occupied the literature of the second half of the 19th century. Motifs already familiar from Goncharov are revealed. For example, in the Ordinary History, the difference between metropolitan and provincial customs is indicated by the attitude to phenomena given, it would seem, to the full and gratuitous possession of a person: Breathe fresh air there all year round,- the elder Aduev admonishes the younger, - and here and this pleasure costs money - everything is so! perfect antipodes! In Saltykov-Shchedrin, this theme is played up in the context of the theft motive, explained as follows: “Obviously, he has already become infected with the Petersburg air; he stole without provincial spontaneity, but counting in advance what chances he might have for justification”.

Criminal extraction of money, theft is introduced into the philosophical system of human society, when people begin to divide into those who are rich and death, and those who for the right to become an heir, "like two times two is four", capable “pour poison, strangle with pillows, hack with an ax!”. The author is not inclined to categorical accusations of those in need of money, on the contrary, he resorts to comparisons with the animal world in order to somehow clarify the strange feeling experienced by the poor towards the rich: “The cat sees a piece of lard in the distance, and since the experience of past days proves that she cannot see this piece like her own ears, she naturally begins to hate him. But, alas! the motive of this hatred is false. She hates not fat, but fate that separates from him ... Fat is such a thing that it is impossible not to love. And so she begins to love him. Love - and at the same time hate ... "

The categorical lexicon of this pseudo-philosophical passage is very remotely, but reminiscent of the syllogisms of Chernyshevsky's novel "What is to be done?", whose heroes strive to elevate every life event, a single fact to a generalization that invariably proves the theory of rational egoism. Estimates, figures, commercial calculations, balancing are somehow confirmed by moral summaries, certifying the truth of the total accounting view of a person. Perhaps only the dreams of Vera Pavlovna are free from calculation, they are given over to the contemplation of fantastic events. It can be assumed that the future, as it is seen in the dreams of the heroine, does not know the need for money, but the assumption will be no less convincing that Vera Pavlovna is resting in her dreams from a prudent theory; otherness is good because in it you can free yourself from the need to save, hoard, count. But it still remains a strange circumstance why the heroine leaves her pragmatic genius, it is enough for her to close her eyes. Shchedrin, as if arguing with Chernyshevsky, saturates the plot of the dream with hyper-commercial operations; releases the feelings of the characters from the oppression of public protective morality, allowing them to listen to the financial voice of the soul.

Chernyshevsky's novel offers two plans for the existential fulfillment of the heroine - a rational present and an ideal future. The past is associated with a gloomy time, not connected with the new reality by the idea of conscious self-comprehension and rationalization of all spheres of individual existence. Vera Pavlovna successfully learned the lessons of the pragmatic worldview that has spread in Russia. The handicraft production she started, reminiscent of the industrial experiments of the West, is consciously idealized by the author, who provides evidence of the prospects of the enterprise. What remains unclear is only the psychological well-being of female workers who devote their working and personal time to the rational philosophy of communist labor. There are enthusiastic apologies for living together in the novel, but even without questioning them, it is difficult to assume that for anyone, except for the hostess, the possibility of individual improvisation within the rigid structure of assigned duties is allowed. At best, the apprenticeship of working women can be crowned with the opening of their own business or re-education: this is not at all bad, but it narrows the space for private initiative. At the level of a probable formula, Vera Pavlovna’s experiment is good, as a reflection of reality it is utopian and turns the narrative itself more towards a fantastic recommendation “how to earn your first million honestly” than to an artistic document of the morals of people who make money.

In portraying merchants and "other financial people", the dramatic scenes of the play "What is Commerce" by Saltykov-Shchedrin are an example of an attempt to encyclopedically present the history of hoarding in Russia. The characters are chosen by domestic merchants, already rich, and a beginner, only dreaming "about the possibility of becoming a "negociant" over time". Introduction to the text of another hero - "loitering" - allows you to connect the play of Saltykov-Shchedrin with the creative tradition of N.V. Gogol - "a gentleman of a suspicious nature, engaged ... in the composition of moralistic articles a la Tryapichkin". Tea and a bottle of Tenerife are followed by a leisurely conversation about the art of trading, costs and benefits. A merchant's plot, unlike the small handicraft one from What Is to Be Done?, is unthinkable without an invariable projection of the past onto the present. The future here is vague, it is not written out in joyful tones, as it contradicts business patriarchal wisdom: “Happiness is not what you rave about at night, but what you sit on and ride on”. Those gathered nostalgically recall the bygone times when they lived “as if in girlhood, they did not know grief”, capitals made money on deceiving peasants, and “under old age, sins before God were prayed for”. Now the customs and habits have changed, everyone, - the merchants complain, - “He strives to snatch his share and make fun of the merchant: bribes have increased - before it was enough to get drunk, but now the official is swaggering, he himself can no longer drink, so “come on, he says, now water the river with Shinpan!”.

Gogol's loitering Tryapichkin listens to a story about how it is profitable for the treasury to supply goods and deceive the state by covering a successful business with a bribe to a clerk who sold state bread "for a quarter" so described, "...what am I, - the merchant Izhburdin confesses, - even surprised myself. And the flood and shallow water are here: only there was no enemy invasion ". In the final scene "lounging" sums up what he heard, evaluating the activities of merchants in emotional terms, ideally expressing the essence of the issue: "fraud... deceit... bribes... ignorance... stupidity... general disgrace!" In general terms, this is the content of the new Inspector General, but there is no one to present its plot to, except for Saltykov-Shchedrin himself. In “The History of a City”, the writer conducts a large-scale revision of the entire Russian Empire, and the chapter “Adoration of Mammon and Repentance” pronounces a caustic sentence on those who, already in the minds of the end of the 20th century, will personify a sovereign conscience and disinterested love for the high; to the same merchants and those in power who care about the welfare of the people, who built their benevolent image, taking more into account the descendants forgetful for an evil memory and completely ignoring those who are poor from "consciousness of one's poverty": “... if a person who has made an alienation worth several million rubles for his own benefit, later becomes even a patron of the arts and builds a marble palazzo in which he will concentrate all the wonders of science and art, then he still cannot be called a skillful public figure, but one should can only be called a skilled swindler". With caustic desperation, the writer notes that "these truths were not yet known" in the mythical Foolov, and as for the native Fatherland, it was persistently proved at all times: “Russia is a vast, plentiful and rich state - but a different person is stupid, starving to himself in a plentiful state”.

Russian thought is faced with the task of determining the place of money in the essential coordinates of social and individual existence, the problem of finding a compromise is long overdue. It is no longer possible to indiscriminately deny the role of economic factors in shaping the national character. The poeticization of patriarchal life and morality by the Slavophiles collides with reality, which is increasingly inclined towards a new type of consciousness, so unpleasantly reminiscent of Western models of self-realization, erected on the philosophy of calculation. Opposing them as antagonistic ideas of spirituality does not look very convincing. The idealization of the merchant class by the early Ostrovsky suddenly reveals a frightening set of properties, even more terrible than European pragmatism. The urban theme reveals conflicts initiated by monetary relations that cannot be ignored. But how to portray a portrait of a new national type of a merchant, who has undoubted advantages over the classical characters of the culture of the beginning of the century, who have long been discredited in public life? The merchant is interesting as a person, attractive by his strong-willed character, but "petty tyrant", - says Ostrovsky, - and "blatant thief", - insists Saltykov-Shchedrin. The search for a new hero by literature is a spontaneous phenomenon, although it reflects the need to discover perspectives, that goal-setting that acts as a paradigm of national thought, becoming a significant link in the new hierarchy of practical and moral values. Russian literature of the middle of the century is carried away by the merchant, the man who created himself, yesterday's peasant, and now the master of the business; most importantly, with its authority and the scope of enterprises that can prove the viciousness of the myth of a beautiful little and poor man. Writers sympathize with poverty, but they are also aware of the dead end of its artistic contemplation and analysis, as if anticipating an impending catastrophe in the form of a philosophical objectification of poverty, destroying the classical set of ideas about universals - freedom, duty, evil, etc. With all the love, for example, Leskov to characters from the people in the writer's works are no less obvious keen interest in the merchant people. Shchedrin's invectives are softened somewhat by Leskov, he does not look so far as to discover the nature of thieves in future patrons. The author of the novel "Nowhere" in the position of one of the heroines is removed from worldview discussions and looks at the dramatically complicated issues with the eyes of everyday life, no less truthful than the views of poets-vitiy.

One of the scenes of the work represents a home discussion about the destiny of a woman; comes to life proofs, stories are told that would have horrified the heroes of the first half of the century and which will be called frankly vicious more than once - about the happy marriage of a girl and a general, which “Though not old, but in real years”. Discussion "real" love, condemnation of young husbands ( “There is no use, everyone only thinks about themselves”) is interrupted by frankness "sentimental forty-year-old landlady", mother of three daughters, listing practical reasons and doubts about their family well-being: “Nobles rich today are quite rare; officials depend on the place: profitable place, and well; otherwise there is nothing; scientists receive a small allowance: I decided to give all my daughters for merchants ”.

An objection to this statement is: "Only will their addiction?", causing a categorical rebuff from the landlady to Russian novels that instill, and of this she is sure, bad thoughts in readers. Preference is given to French literature, which no longer exerts such an influence on girlish minds as at the beginning of the century. Zarnitsyn's question: “And who will marry the poor people?” does not confuse a mother of many children, who remains true to her principles, but outlines a serious topic of culture: the literary typology, proposed by the artistic model of reality, the standard of not always obligatory, but obligatory in the organization of thought and deed, created by the novels of Pushkin and Lermontov, exhausts itself, loses its normative orientation. The absence in real life of rich nobles, culturally identical to classical characters, frees up the space of their existential and mental habitation. This place turns out to be vacant, which is why the model of the reader's literary and practical self-identification is destroyed. The hierarchy of literary types, ways of thinking and incarnation is being destroyed. The so-called type extra person turns into a cultural relic, loses lifelikeness; the other levels of the system are adjusted accordingly. Small man, previously interpreted primarily from ethical positions, not having balance in the discredited extra person figure of balance, acquires a new vital and cultural status; it begins to be perceived in the context not of potential moral good deeds, but in the concrete reality of the opposition "poverty - wealth".

The characters of the novels of the second half of the century, if they retain the features of classical typology, then only as traditional masks of externalized forms of cultural existence. Money turns into an idea that reveals the viability of the individual, his existential rights. The question of obligations does not arise immediately and distinguishes the plebeian plot of a petty official and a commoner, whose plot positions are reduced to pathetic attempts to survive. The genre of the physiological essay reduces the problem of poverty-wealth to a natural-philosophical critique of capital and does not resolve the dilemma itself. The statement seems too superficial: wealth is evil, and poverty requires compassion. Objective economic factors that led to such a state of society are not taken into account. On the other hand, cultural interest in the psychology of poverty and wealth is intensifying. If earlier both of these hypostases were only defined as a given, now there has been increased attention to the existential nature of antinomies.

Poverty turns out to be more accessible for artistic research, it is clothed in moral concepts, centered in sovereign ethical categories. An apology is being created for the marginal state of a person who deliberately does not compromise with conscience. This plot also exhausts the peasant images of literature. The theme of wealth is completely ousted from the moral continuum of the integrity of the world. Such a position, based on a radical opposition, may not long suit a culture interested in forms of contact between two marginal limits. The intra-subject relations of honest poverty and vicious wealth begin to be explored, and it turns out that a convincing paradigm does not always correspond to the true position of people on the conditional axis of ethical coordinates. The moment of unpredictability of the seemingly socially programmed behavior of the characters is explored by Leskov in the story "Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District". The merchant Zinoviy Borisovich, whom the author sympathizes with, is strangled by folk characters - Ekaterina Lvovna and Sergei. The poisoned old man and the murdered baby are on their conscience. Leskov does not simplify the conflict. The reasons for the murders are called passion and money. Saturation of intrigue with such unequal concepts raises the plot to a mystical picture that requires its consideration from a point of view that is different from the ordinary one. The co-creation of two heroes, as if coming out of Nekrasov's poems, leads to the total destruction of the world. Expositionally inert people join the idea of passion, this is not just an impulse to feel or money, but a concentrated image of a new meaning, an ecstatic sphere of application of forces, beyond which the significance of everyday experience is lost, there comes a feeling of release from reflexive behavior patterns. One reason (money or love) would suffice to illustrate the idea of passion. Leskov consciously combines both impulses in order to avoid identifying the characters' actions with plots that have been tested by culture. The resulting integrity of the unity of aspirations in the metaphysical plane allows you to bring money out of the simulation, optional space of individual life activity to the level of the beginning, equal in parameters to love, which previously exhausted the content of the idea of passion.

The falsity of this synonymy is revealed only in the bloody methods of achieving the goal, the criminal implementation of plans: the radicalism of the very dream of becoming rich and happy is not questioned. If the heroes had to strangle the villains, the idea of passion would have many readers' excuses. Leskov's experiment consists in an attempt to endow the heroine with the intention to comprehend an infinitely complete being, gaining much-needed freedom. The impracticability of the goal lies in the inversion of moral dominants, an attempt on the unlawful and incomprehensible. A positive experience, so to speak, about a plot oversaturated with murders (meaning, first of all, the philosophical disclosure of the monetary plot of Leskovsky's text), lies in an attempt to push the boundaries of equally global emotions, through false forms of characters' self-fulfillment, to come to the formulation of the idea of passion as rationalized and in that the same measure of a chaotic type of activity, regardless of whether it is aimed at love or money. Equalized concepts exchange their genetic foundations and can equally act as a prelude to a vice or an existential design of a person.

The Shakespearean allusion noted in the title of the work becomes a thematic exposition of the disclosure of the Russian character. Lady Macbeth's will to power suppresses even hints of other desires; the plot of the herogni focuses on the dominant impulse. Katerina Lvovna is trying to change the world of objective laws, and the volitional inferiority of her chosen one does little to correct her ideas about morality. Shakespeare's concentration of the image implies the disclosure of an integral character in the process of devastation of the surrounding world. Everything that hinders the achievement of the intended is physically destroyed, the self-sufficient character displaces the unviable from the sphere, criminally created to calm the soul, embodied by the idea of passion.

Russian literature has not yet known such a character. The selflessness of classical heroines is associated with a one-time act resulting from the impulsiveness of the decision. Katerina Lvovna differs from them in her consistency in making dreams come true, which undoubtedly indicates the emergence of a new character in culture. The vicious score of self-manifestation indicates spiritual degradation, at the same time meaning the ability to declare one's own identity as an unattainable goal. In this regard, Leskov's heroine marks the beginning of a qualitative transformation of the dilapidated literary typology. The general classification paradigm "rich-poor" is confirmed by the appearance of a character that gives the scheme of images a special philosophical scale. The rich no longer appear as an opposition to poverty, but are revealed in a thirst for possession of power over circumstances. The merchant plot points to a similar phenomenon, but a chain of petty frauds and compromises opens up the theme of a merchant for social satire, externalizing and exaggerating the global philosophy of acquisition, deceit and crime, leading to freedom and the ability to dictate one's will. The appearance of Leskov's heroine provoked culture to ideological experimentation, unthinkable without an ideological impulse, directly or indirectly based on a pragmatic basis, then displaced by a borderline psychological state beyond the limits of spiritual and practical experience. A year later, Dostoevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment" will be published, in which the semantics of the will of a self-conscious being will be revealed in the transcendent uncertainty of perspectives (punishment) and the concreteness of measuring empirical reality (crime). Raskolnikov's reflexivity of consciousness can be likened to Shakespeare's Macbeth, in whom logos triumphs over rationality. "Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District" expands the interpretative horizon of Raskolnikov's plot with a naturalistic-pragmatic version of the realization of a global individual utopia that extends to the universe.

In Dostoevsky's novel, the presence of textual memory, an integral set of motives outlined by Leskov, is palpable. The tragedy of Katerina Lvovna - in a hypertrophied will, Raskolnikov's defeat - in an atrophied character, painful self- and worldview. Writers offer two hypostases of the philosophy of action, equally based on the image of money; they are welcome, but they turn out to be insignificant, as they are supplanted by ethical concepts. Russian literature reveals the line that begins to separate the sphere of the absolute subjectivity of the spirit from objectified forms. "commercial" self-realization of characters. After the dramatic experience of Katerina Lvovna and Raskolnikov, a new period of mastering the topic of money begins. Now they are offered as an occasion to talk about the overtime and are not condemned, but are ascertained as a consequence of some other-worldly meaning. On the other hand, the financial plot receives a new sound, becoming a symbolic territory that excludes superficially satirical commentary, organically perceiving the mythological signs of sacred categories - love, will, power, law, virtue and vice. In this list of ontological parameters of being, money acts as a unit of their measurement, an operational number that creates sums of human and cosmological scales and breaks up concrete and empirical nature into negligibly small quantities.

However, it should be noted that money in "Lady Macbeth ..." and "Crime and Punishment" does not play the main role, they only mediate plot situations, dramatically determine them. The financial side of life does not exhaust the activity of the characters, being only the background of the plot world. The philosophy of the thoughts and actions of the heroes is unusually mobile, transforming in relation to circumstances. An example of a different type of human existence is presented in Leskov's Iron Will. The German Hugo Karlovich Pectoralis demonstrates a radical pattern of behavior, raising money, as well as principles, into the paradigm of self-realization. Standing declarations of a hero's own "iron will" initially give predictable dividends; the desired amount is finally collected, great production prospects open up: “He set up a factory and at the same time at every step followed his reputation as a man who is above circumstances and puts everything on his own everywhere”. Everything is going well until "iron will" the German does not encounter Russian weakness, poverty, gentleness, arrogance and carelessness. The position of the antagonist Vasily Safronovich, due to whose reckless lack of principle the dispute arose, is folklore simple: “... we are ... Russian people- With heads are bony, fleshy below. It’s not like German sausage, you can chew it all, everything will be left of us.”.

The reader, who is accustomed to literary glorifications of the efficiency of the Germans, who is familiar with Goncharov's Stolz and the students of European economists, preachers of reasonable egoism - the heroes of Chernyshevsky, it is not difficult to imagine how the lawsuit between Pectoralis and "bony and fleshy". The German will achieve his goal, that's why he is a good worker, and stubborn, and an intelligent engineer, and an expert on laws. But the situation is unfolding far from in favor of Hugo Karlovich. Leskov, for the first time in Russian literature, paints the plot of the idle life of a worthless person on interest sued from an adamant enemy. The reader's expectations are not even deceived, the phantasmagoric story destroys the usual cultural stereotypes. Russian "maybe", hope for a chance, coupled with the familiar clerk's Zhiga, amount to a capital of five thousand rubles "lazy, sluggish and careless" Safronych. The truth is, money doesn't work for anyone. Leskov's story reveals original, yet unexplored trends in the movement of the financial plot. It turns out that pragmatism, reinforced by ambition and will, is not always successful in the art of making money. The purposeful German goes bankrupt, the spineless Safronych provides himself with daily trips to the tavern. Fate disposes in such a way that the huge Russian space for financial initiative turns out to be extremely narrowed, it is focused on a person who does not trust calculation and relies more on the usual course of things. Not accidental in this regard is the scene of the discussion by the police chief and Pectoralis of the plan for a new house. The essence of the discussion is whether it is possible to place six windows on the facade of six sazhens, “and in the middle is a balcony and a door”. Engineer says: "Scale will not allow". What gets the answer: “Yes, what is the scale in our village ... I tell you, we don’t have a scale”.

The irony of the author reveals the signs of reality, not subject to the influence of time; poor patriarchal reality does not know the wisdom of capitalist accumulation, it is not trained in Western tricks and trusts desire more than profit and common sense. The conflict of Leskov's heroes, like the duel between Oblomov and Stolz, ends in a draw, the heroes of Iron Will die, which symbolically indicates that they are equally useless to the Russian "scale". Pectoralis was never able to abandon the principles "iron will", too defiant and incomprehensible to others. Safronych, from the happiness of a free life, becomes an inveterate drunkard, leaving behind him a literary heir - Chekhov's Simeonov-Pishchik, who is constantly under fear of complete ruin, but thanks to another accident he corrects his financial affairs.

In Leskov's story, the issue of German enterprise is discussed too often for this cultural and historical fact to be confirmed once again. Russian literature of the 70s. nineteenth century felt the need to say goodbye to the myth of a foreign merchant and overseas founder of large enterprises. The image of the German has exhausted itself and transferred the already fairly weakened potential to domestic merchants and industrialists. The answer to the question why Leskov clashes the interests of a businesslike German with a banal layman, and not a figure equal to Goncharov's Stolz, lies in the writer's attempt to free up literary space for depicting the activities of the future Morozovs, Shchukins, Prokhorovs, Khludovs, Alekseevs and hundreds of initiative domestic entrepreneurs, acquaintances with Russian "scale" and showing miracles of perseverance and resourcefulness in achieving the goal. The German turns out to be too direct to understand all the intricacies of the relations prevailing in the provinces. Here you need a mobile mind, ingenuity, worldly cunning, valiant enthusiasm, and not a manifestation of iron will and principles. The author of the story consciously compares the energy of a self-builder and life, mired in entropy: such a striking contrast in the interpretation of Chernyshevsky would be an ideal sphere for cultivating life under a very effective idea. Such decisions are also necessary for culture, the biased preaching of beautiful and too prudent views in one way or another reflects the essence of the worldview of social reality. Tactical literary conflicts cannot exhaust all of its cultural, historical and philosophical content. Leskov's artistic experience belongs to the strategic level of commenting on problems; the classification of the qualities and properties of people, their unification in a new literary conflict destroy the well-known typological models, polemicize with unconditional thematic myths.

Starting with Leskov, culture no longer solves the specific problems of characters getting used to society or the universe, but diagnoses the categorical hierarchies of the corporal-spiritual, material-sensual, private-national. The mythology of the Russian character is being revised, painfully familiar themes and images are being revised.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

SATIRICAL SKILLS OF M. E. SALTYKOV-SHCHEDRIN

Early stories ("Contradictions", "A Tangled Case") and philosophical discussions of the 50-60s. 19th century:

a) the theme of social injustice and images of despair;

b) interpretation of Gogol's motives.

"History of one city" as a grotesque panorama of Russia:
"Tales" in the context of social and aesthetic issues:

Turkov A. M. Saltykov-Shchedrin. - M., 1981
Bushmin A. S. The Artistic World of Saltykov-Shchedrin. - L., 1987
Prozorov V. V. Saltykov-Shchedrin. - M., 1988
Nikolaev D.P. Shchedrin's Laughter. Essays on satirical poetics. - M., 1988

Economists, philologists, bankers, social activists and ordinary citizens discussed the models of financial behavior of the heroes of their favorite literary works at the “Family Counts”* festival in Perm. Experts recommended that the Ranevsky family from The Cherry Orchard recognize the deal for the sale of the garden as invalid, and found out that money is one of the plot frames in Russian literature.

We are publishing a transcript of the literary and financial blitz "Where did the pinocchio soldos and other adventures of financial rogues and klutzes of Russian literature go." The event took place on May 12 as part of the “Family Considers” financial literacy festival at the Center for Urban Culture.

Participants of the discussion:

Svetlana Makovetskaya, discussion moderator, director of the GRANI center, economist

Anna Moiseva, Candidate of Philological Sciences, Senior Lecturer at the Department of Russian Literature, PSNIU

Peter Sitnik, financier, teacher HSE Perm

Irina Orlova, banker, lecturer at HSE Perm,

Valentin Shalamov, banker

Maria Gorbach, writer, social activist

Entry and legacy of Eugene Onegin

Svetlana Makovetskaya: We have all studied Russian classical literature and, on occasion, we try to show ourselves, if not people who are deeply immersed, then well-versed in this area. I think that an appeal to literary experience will allow us to talk about what the expected financial behavior of characters who are almost relatives of us looks like and what would change in their fates if they acted differently. Let's discuss those works where there are clearly stories of financial success or tragedy, where financial decisions were made in the interests of the family or led to the collapse of the whole family.

First of all, “Eugene Onegin” by A.S. comes to my mind. Pushkin. Everyone remembers the quote: “His father lived in debt. Gave three balls annually. And finally squandered." Let me remind you that Yevgeny himself renounces the inheritance, then complex constructions follow in the text of the work about what Yevgeny knows about the “natural product” and other economic categories, unlike daddy. It is the renunciation of the inheritance that makes Eugene come to an equally rich, dying uncle, after which the main plot of the work unfolds. Probably, if Onegin had not abandoned his father's inheritance, then everything would have turned out differently. By the way, the philologist Yuri Lotman, in his commentary on Eugene Onegin, drew attention to the fact that Russian nobles were constantly in debt. So Evgeny's father regularly mortgaged and remortgaged the land. As a result, everything went to dust and the land went to the creditors, and not to Eugene.

Experts (from left to right): Anna Moiseva - philologist, Maria Gorbach - social activist and former teacher of literature, Valentin Shalamov - banker, Pyotr Sitnik - fundamental financier, discuss the financial behavior of their favorite literary characters.

Indians of capitalism

Peter Sitnik:“The Cherry Orchard” by A.P. immediately comes to my mind. Chekhov, which, by the way, I learned in detail in the lessons of economic history, and not literature, as an example of rent-seeking behavior. But I want to tell not about him, but about the Americans of "One-story America" Ilf and Petrov. In general, if you want to understand the economy, then read either “Dunno on the Moon” by N. Nosov (school level) or “One-Story America” (university level).

I would like to draw attention to the history of one Indian tribe from One-Story America, which lived its own culture in the country of victorious capitalism. However, globalization overtakes them when one of the tribesmen organizes trade. He travels to the nearest city, buys goods there and resells them on the spot. Everything is going well, until one of the American townspeople was horrified that the Indian was trading without a markup. When an American asks an Indian about the motives of such disinterestedness, he receives in response: “But this is not a job! Here hunting is work. That is, the Indian traded only so that the tribe had goods that were not in the village.

If you want to understand the economy, then read either “Dunno on the Moon” by N. Nosov (school level) or “One-Story America” (university level)

But what happened if the Indian turned his activity into commerce? We know the answer from the example of the tribes that nevertheless took this path. In the United States, for example, the government allowed the Indians of Seattle to create casinos on their territory, which became their main source of income. Some of these tribes even managed to preserve their culture, but in a somewhat decorative version (for tourists). And where there is no casino yet, the authentic Indian culture has remained.

About Balda and a wide range of obligations of Russian employees

Maria Gorbach: I have always perceived literature as a collection of cases, and told the children that it is not at all necessary to experience everything from personal experience, you can just look into books. Preparing for the discussion, I also chose the work of A.S. Pushkin "The Tale of the Priest and his Worker Balda". This is a work about how to conclude a contract with a wide range of duties and not pay an employee on it.

It is noteworthy that the conspiracy with the priest includes the priest, who initially sympathized with Balda in every possible way, in this Pushkin reveals female deceit. After all, it is the popadya who advises entrusting Balda with such work, which he definitely cannot cope with (ask dues from the lake devils). However, to everyone's surprise, including the devils themselves, Balda copes with this task!

The Tale of the Priest and his Worker Balda. This is a work about how to conclude a contract with a wide range of duties and not pay an employee on it.

What contract said that Balda should collect dues from some devils? But, nevertheless, he is given such an assignment, and he takes up its execution as easily and cheerfully as for all the previous ones. Obviously, Balda perceives any task as an opportunity for self-realization, expansion of his own space and competencies. At the same time, the devils also got like the last "suckers".

Moderator: Solid non-economic coercion is obtained!

Maria Gorbach: Yes! Balda, excuse me, takes everyone on a show off, proves to be a brilliant communicator, collects dues from the devils, and only after that begins to demand payment for his labor.

Reply from the audience: Behavior of a typical collector.

Maria Gorbach: Please note that in this whole story there is no money at all. And when hiring an employee, there is no question of either a contract or remuneration. As a result, Balda goes to work for everything known, exclusively Russian: “for food”! Putting yourself to work, but not specifying the conditions of work - this is very in our opinion.

As a result, if the priest did not come up with different schemes of how not to pay Balda, but behaved honestly and decently, then perhaps he would have survived. But, I repeat, it is noteworthy that throughout the entire work there is always talk of business relations and never about money. And for me, what matters here is how easily people take on duties that are not characteristic of them. I'm sure everyone in our country does this, so we are all Balds to one degree or another.

Confrontation of two strategies: playing by the rules and their violations in "Humiliated and Insulted"

Valentin Shalamov: I would like to offer for discussion the best and, in my opinion, the most profound work of F.M. Dostoevsky - "Humiliated and Insulted". There are many financial situations here, although they are not described in detail, but the nerve of such problems is well shown. The parties and their interests are marked. A situation is considered when one person can manipulate anyone: a son, a bride, the bride's parents, an ex-wife and her father, using the most harsh and dirty methods. At the same time, the person himself remains pure in the eyes of others.

Of interest is the comparison of the values of the world of Protestantism (Calvinism) and the Russian world on the example of the confrontation between the Englishman Jeremiah Smith and Prince Valkovsky (one of the main characters and the main villain). The novel begins with the death of Jeremiah, which was the result of this confrontation. In my opinion, if Jeremiah Smith had carried out what we now call due diligence on the counterparty, kept financial documents, and also adhered to a risk-sharing strategy (rather than investing everything in the Valkovsky enterprise), then the tragedy could have been avoided.

Moderator: You specifically emphasized that Jeremiah Smith is an Englishman, that is, more competent behavior should be expected from him?

Valentin Shalamov: On the contrary, Smith is a Protestant. He was sure: if you behave in good faith towards a partner, which he did, then in return you should expect the same attitude from a potential counterparty.

Moderator: A classic confrontation between a person who is used to playing by the rules and someone who breaks them.

Vronsky or Levin?

Irina Orlova: I want to say thank you for the two evenings that I spent rereading my favorite novel Anna Karenina by L.N. Tolstoy to prepare for the discussion. We are used to looking at this work from the point of view of the nature of the relationship between a man and a woman, a mother and a child, and so on. Now I studied him from the point of view of the financial behavior of the two main characters: Vronsky and Levin.

By the way Vronsky sold Dolly's timber, one can agree with the statement above that the Russian nobility did not consider it shameful for themselves to live up to their ears in debt. Moreover, debts were passed down from generation to generation.

In the character of Vronsky, the discrepancy between expenses and income is manifested most clearly. The opposite of him is Levin, who never borrowed money and always lived within his means, and on the whole was much more careful in his affairs than Vronsky.

Anna Moiseeva: But, on the other hand, if Vronsky had been different, then probably Anna Karenina would not have chosen him.

From "Undergrowth" to "Dead Souls"

Anna Moiseva: It was difficult for me to dwell on any one work, so I will do something like a review and try to prove that the topic of finance is very important for Russian literature, starting from the 18th century (since the formation of European-style secular literature in Russia).

The plot of the first work in this series is “Undergrowths” by D.I. Fonvizina is completely built around the financial issue, namely the extradition of the dunce Mitrofanushka for the dowry Sofya, who suddenly becomes the heiress of an annual income of 15 thousand rubles. There is also a wonderful image of Uncle Starodum, who earned money for his niece in Siberia in an honest way. One can recall his wonderful words: "Rich is not the one who counts money, but the one who counts extra money in order to help others."

A.S. Pushkin's "The Miserly Knight" and "The Queen of Spades" are directly connected with the theme of money. If everything is more or less clear with the “Knight”, then I would like to dwell on the “Queen of Spades” in more detail. It is worth noting that Herman is far from a poor person, although we are accustomed to considering him a poor thing who cannot fulfill himself. Let me remind you that he stakes 47 thousand rubles - quite decent money for that time. He just wants everything at once.

N.V. Gogol in "Dead Souls" describes ready-made fraudulent schemes

N.V. Gogol in "Dead Souls" describes ready-made fraudulent schemes that Chichikov turned, as well as a number of images representing different models of financial behavior of landowners. There is a wasteful Manilov here, who cannot treat a guest with decent food, but is ready to build a gazebo in the garden for his sake. The accumulator Sobakevich tries to collect as much as possible from everyone, even he tries to cash in on a deal with Chichikov, although he understands its dubious purity. A box that stupidly and stupidly accumulates, and spends everything on miserable shreds. Nozdryov, ready to spend the last on his whims (puppy, hurdy-gurdy with one melody, etc.). Plyushkin combines both the craving for accumulation and thoughtless spending. The way he runs the house is complete suicide! Having an excellent household at first, he ends up walking around the house in an old dressing gown, holding wine with flies, and in his pockets only dried crackers. All these are examples of how not to behave in terms of money-grubbing or squandering.

It is impossible to underestimate the influence of money on the fate of the heroes of F.M. Dostoevsky. Raskolnikov, like Herman from The Queen of Spades, is also aimed at getting everything at once. Which leads him to tragedy, although Raskolnikov wanted to direct his capital to lofty goals: to spend it not on himself, but on the needs of his loved ones.

Thus, the theme of money is very significant in Russian literature. Perhaps that is why we do not notice it, because it is found almost everywhere, but always in conjunction with the problems of human relationships, although this financial spring often determines the development of the plot of works, the fate of the characters. In the case of the same “Crime and Punishment”, if Raskolknikov had not wanted everything at once, then the novel would not have happened, and the pawnbroker died a quiet and peaceful death and all destinies would be intact.

On the love of money

Peter Sitnik: I would like to continue the idea that money and relationships are always somewhere nearby. In general, finance is money itself and relationships about it. Following this logic, it is necessary to remember that finances and how a person perceives them, appreciates or despises them are inseparable things.

Reply from the audience: Here I would like to return to the title of the topic of discussion. Perhaps it is no coincidence that in Alexei Tolstoy's interpretation of a foreign work, we encounter a completely different attitude to money. After all, Pinocchio sincerely loves his soldos, I can’t remember a single Russian work where the hero’s love for money would be just as bright and direct.

In Russia, money has always been, first of all, an attribute of status and power. They are not valuable to us.

Reply from the audience: Because in Russia money has always been, first of all, an attribute of status and power. They are not valuable to us.

Moderator: Having money with us means that they need to be prayed for or protected in a special way.

Maria Gorbach: Optimistic about money, in my opinion, wrote A.N. Ostrovsky.

Anna Moiseva: A striking example of impeccable business discipline and respectful attitude to finances is Prince Bolkonsky (father of Andrei Bolkonsky) from L.N. Tolstoy. As everyone remembers, he hardly made time to meet with his son before he went to war.

Reply from the audience: In the same "War and Peace" there is an example of the financially illiterate behavior of an entire family. I mean the Rostovs, where each member of the family only aggravated the situation, not wanting to change their own habits. Which ultimately led to the financial collapse of this cute couple.

Svetlana Makovetskaya, director of the GRANI Center, discussion moderator

Results. Council Ranevsky

Moderator: Let's take the textbook "The Cherry Orchard" and think about what can be changed financially for the heroes for a successful ending to the work?

Anna Moiseva: There is an article on this topic by Elena Chirkova, a wonderful lecturer at the Higher School of Economics. She notes that Ranevskaya had several options. Firstly, not to sell the entire estate, but only a plot with a house or rent out some part of the estate. Secondly, follow the advice of Fiers and try to establish a cherry trade. But Mrs. Ranevskaya, again, wanted everything at once. Here she receives a letter from Paris, and she prefers 90 thousand lump-sum income instead of smaller, but annual payments.

Moderator: It seems to me that Ranevskaya is also a person who, in principle, cannot make decisions, which is why everything happens as if by itself, weakly and almost by accident.

Irina Orlova: It was still possible to recognize the transaction for the sale of the Ranevsky estate as invalid.

Valentin Shalamov: In general, a rich woman and a young gigolo is a plot that is reproduced in our literature in different periods.

Moderator: Let's sum up. We found out that money is sometimes a rigid plot frame in classic works, but we are not aware of this, probably because of the shameful attitude towards money. We noted the feeling that the Russians are not entirely respectful of money, and perhaps that is why we do not get it. And successful or losing models of financial behavior can be inherent in the whole family, and not just one person, and the unwillingness of family members to change leads to the collapse of the whole family.

* The “Family Counts” project is being implemented by the GRANI center together with the federal Ministry of Finance and the World Bank in five cities of the Perm Territory: Perm, Kudymkar, Kungur, Lysva and Okhansk. The goal of the project is to increase the financial literacy and awareness of families in the field of financial services, mastering the skills to receive safe and high-quality financial services, the formation of “positive” models of household activities in local communities in the implementation and protection of the rights of consumers of financial services.

A radical fight against corruption has begun in Russia. The statement seems ultra-modern, but it was first made in 1845, during the reign of Nicholas I. Since then, the fight against bribery, embezzlement and extortion has only intensified, and Russian literature has acquired plot after plot.

Here, wife, - a male voice said, - how they achieve ranks, and what profits have come to me, that I serve flawlessly ... According to decrees, it was ordered to reward for respectable service. But the king favors, but the kennel does not favor. That's how our Mr. Treasurer; already another time, at his suggestion, they send me to the criminal chamber (they put me on trial.- "Money")…

Do you know why he doesn't love you? For the fact that you are a trade (a fee charged when exchanging or exchanging one money for another.- "Money") you take from everyone, but you don’t share with him.

Having overheard this conversation, the hero of Radishchev's Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow, written in the 1780s, learns in the morning that a juror and his wife spent the night in the same hut with him.

“And what did I gain, that I serve impeccably ...” - Alexander Radishchev’s “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” was perceived by contemporaries as a sentence to a regime based on bribery

The heroine of the work, dated 1813, who was in the chicken coop as a judge, “expelled for bribes”, rushes from there at full speed, but tries to prove to the Surk who met on the road that she “suffers in vain”. The marmot believes reluctantly, because he "had often seen" that the stigma of the Fox was in a cannon. Krylov in "The Fox and the Groundhog" formulates "the moral of this fable" as follows:

“Another sighs in such a place,

As if the last ruble survives.

... And you look, little by little,

Either he will build a house, or he will buy a village.

And finally, the 1820s. The frail estate of the father was taken away by a rich tyrant neighbor. Without any legal basis, but the court takes bribes and decides in favor of the strong and rich. The father dies of grief. The son, deprived of his fortune, is served as a robber. Robbery and kill people. Do you remember the school program? How many were killed, Pushkin does not report, he only writes that when 150 soldiers surrounded Dubrovsky's gang, the robbers fired back and won. Corruption creates a whole chain of troubles.

Lev Lurie in the book “Petersburgers. Russian capitalism. The first attempt” states that bribes were taken everywhere in Nikolaev Russia, and embezzlement became a habit: “The chief manager of communications, Count Kleinmichel, stole money intended to order furniture for the burned-out Winter Palace. The director of the office of the Committee for the Wounded Politkovsky squandered all the money of his committee in front of and with the participation of top dignitaries. Petty Senate officials were all building stone houses for themselves in the capital and, for a bribe, were ready to both justify the murderer and send an innocent to hard labor. But the champions in corruption were the quartermasters, who were responsible for supplying the army with food and uniforms. As a result, during the first 25 years of the reign of Nicholas I, 40% of the soldiers of the Russian army died of diseases - more than a million people (at the same time, the military ministry shamelessly lied to the emperor, which improved the allowance of the soldiers nine times).

Everyone steals!

In Gogol's The Inspector General, written in 1836, all officials steal and take bribes. The mayor “cuts” the budget: “... if they ask why the church was not built at a charitable institution, for which a sum was allocated a year ago, then do not forget to say that it began to be built, but burned down ... Otherwise, perhaps, someone, having forgotten, foolishly say that it never started. And besides, he laid tribute to the merchants. “There has never been such a mayor before .... He makes such grievances that it is impossible to describe ... What follows on the dresses of his wife and daughter - we are not against this. No, you see, all this is not enough for him ... he will come to the shop and take everything he gets. The cloth sees the thing, says: “Hey, dear, this is a good cloth: bring it to me” ... And in the piece it will be almost fifty arshins ... not to mention, what delicacy, it takes all sorts of rubbish: such prunes, that ... the inmate will not eat, but he will launch a whole handful there. His name days are on Anton, and it seems that you will inflict everything, you don’t need anything; no, give him more: he says, and on Onufry his name day, ”the merchants complain to Khlestakov.

The mayor's version: merchants are cheating, therefore the "kickback" is fair: on a contract with the treasury, they "inflate" it by 100 thousand, supplying rotten cloth, and then donating 20 arshins. The “justification” for bribery is his “lack of wealth” (“the state salary is not enough even for tea and sugar”) and the modest amount of the bribe (“if there were any bribes, then just a little: something on the table and for a couple of dresses” ).

All the officials and merchants of the small town where Khlestakov showed up bring him bribes under the guise of borrowing money. The mayor manages to be the first: “Well, thank God! took the money. Things seem to be going well now. I did give him instead of two hundred and four hundred.” As a result, an impressive amount is collected: “This is three hundred from the judge; this is from the postmaster three hundred, six hundred, seven hundred, eight hundred ... What a greasy piece of paper! Eight hundred, nine hundred ... Wow! It has exceeded a thousand ... ”After this calculation, the mayor gives more, and his daughter favors a Persian carpet, so that it would be more convenient for the hero to go further. Only the landlords Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky are diligently trying to dodge bribes; these two found “loans” of only 65 rubles. Maybe because they had nothing to blame?

honest official

In the story of Alexander Pushkin "Dubrovsky" corruption in court gives rise to a whole chain of troubles

33 years pass, and the image of an honest official appears in Russian literature. This is Aleksashka Ryzhov, a quarterly district town of Soligalich, Kostroma province - the hero of Leskov's story "Odnodum" from the cycle "The Righteous". “The state salary for this fourth position in the state was supposed to be only ten rubles in banknotes per month, that is, about two rubles eighty-five kopecks at the current account.” (We are talking about more ancient times - Ryzhov was born under Catherine II.) The quarterly place, although not very high, “was, however, quite profitable, if only the person who occupied it was well able to steal a log of firewood from each wagon, a couple beetroot or head of cabbage. But the quarterly behaves strangely by local standards and is listed as "damaged".

His tasks include “observing the right weight and the full measure and trimmed” in the bazaar, where his mother sold pies, but he did not put his mother in the best place and rejected the offerings of the “cabbage women” who came to bow. Ryzhov does not appear with congratulations to eminent citizens - because he has nothing to dress up, although the former quarterly was seen "and a uniform with a collar, and retuza, and boots with a tassel." He buried his mother modestly, he didn’t even order a prayer. He did not accept gifts either from the mayor - two bags of potatoes, or from the archpriest - two shirt-fronts of his own needlework. The authorities are trying to marry him, because "from a married man ... even a rope, he will endure everything, because he will have chicks, and he will regret the woman." Aleksashka marries, but does not change: when the wife took the farmer's salt for a tub of mushrooms, he beat his wife, and gave the mushrooms to the farmer.

One day, a new governor comes to town and asks local officials about Ryzhov, who is now “and. O. mayor": is he moderate about bribes? The mayor reports that he lives only on a salary. According to the governor, "there is no such person in all of Russia." At a meeting with the mayor himself, Ryzhov does not lack in servility, he even dares. To the remark that he has “very strange actions”, he replies: “it seems strange to everyone that he himself is not peculiar”, he admits that he does not respect the authorities - because they are “lazy, greedy and crooked before the throne”, reports that he does not afraid of arrest: "They eat well in prison." And in addition, he offers the governor himself to learn how to live on 10 rubles. per month. The governor is impressed by this, and he not only does not punish Ryzhov, but also does the impossible: through his efforts, Ryzhov is awarded "the Vladimir cross that bestows nobility - the first Vladimir cross granted to a quarterly."

From bribery to covetousness

A radical fight against corruption at the level of laws in the Russian Empire began in the later reign of Nicholas I, with the introduction in 1845 of the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments.

Receiving a reward for an action without violating the “duty of service” was considered bribery, with violations - extortion, which was distinguished by three types: illegal requisitions under the guise of state taxes, bribes from petitioners and extortion. The latter was considered the most difficult. A bribe could not be taken either through relatives or through acquaintances. Even the expressed consent to accept a bribe before the very fact of transfer was a crime. A bribe could be recognized as receiving a benefit in a veiled form - in the form of a card loss or the purchase of goods at a reduced price. Officials could not conclude any deals with persons who took contracts from the department where they serve.

The punishment for bribery was relatively mild: a monetary penalty with or without removal from office. The extortionist could be sent to prison for a period of five to six years, deprived of all “special rights and advantages”, that is, honorary titles, nobility, ranks, insignia, the right to enter the service, enroll in a guild, etc. In the presence of aggravating circumstances the extortionist was threatened with hard labor from six to eight years and the deprivation of all rights and status. Legislation required that when sentencing a covetous person, ranks and previous merits should not be taken into account.

There was little sense from the code. So, according to the data cited by Lurie, in the 1840s-1850s, tax-farmers (who won the competition for the monopoly trade in vodka in taverns throughout the province) spent on average up to 20 thousand rubles a year to bribe provincial officials, while the annual salary of the governor in those days it ranged from 3 to 6 thousand. “In a small town, up to 800 buckets of vodka were supplied in the form of bribes to the mayor, private bailiffs and quarterly guards (local police),” Lurie writes.

In the reign of Nicholas I, the champions in corruption were the quartermasters, who were responsible for supplying the army with food and uniforms.

There is also literary evidence that practically nothing has changed with the publication of the Code. In Pisemsky's novel "People of the Forties", published in 1869, the protagonist Pavel Vikhrov, a young landowner who was exiled to serve "in one of the provinces" for his free-thinking writings, faces bribery. Vikhrov discovers that corruption permeates all relations between subjects and the state. His first job is to catch red-handed and pacify the schismatic priests. He goes to a remote village together with the "solicitor of state property." Vikhrov would be glad not to find traces of the fact that the priests did not pray according to the Orthodox rite, for he considers persecution on the basis of religion to be wrong, but he has a witness. He, however, is also not averse to drawing up a paper on the absence of violations: he tore off 10 rubles from the main “seducer of the peasants into a split”. gold for himself and the same amount for Vikhrov, but since he does not take bribes, he kept everything for himself. The next case - "about the murder of the peasant Ermolaev's wife" - the secretary of the district court calls the case "about the suddenly deceased wife of the peasant Ermolaev", because there is no evidence of the murder. The exhumation of the body by Vikhrov shows that the “deceased” has a broken skull and chest, one ear is half torn off, and her lungs and heart are damaged. The police officer, who conducted the investigation, did not notice signs of a violent death: he bought Ermolaev for 1000 rubles. a rich man, for whom he undertook to serve in the army. When Vikhrov goes on another business, the peasants collect 100 rubles for a bribe. Vikhrov not only does not take them, but also requires a receipt that he did not take them. It will be useful to him, because an honest person is inconvenient - they will try to expose him as a bribe-taker. It is clear from the context that these events take place in 1848, that is, after the adoption of the Code.

The mysterious hand that feeds city and county doctors is a bribe,” wrote Nikolai Leskov in the article “A few words about police doctors in Russia

Almost documentary evidence that for all categories of bribe-takers, secondary, so to speak, incomes greatly overlapped the main ones, is Leskov’s article “A Few Words about Police Doctors in Russia” of 1860. In it, the author assures that the doctor’s official annual income is 200 rubles, but “the mysterious hand that feeds city and district doctors is a bribe,” and “neither trade nor industry, according to the state, is supposed to flourish.” In a city with 75,000 inhabitants, two city doctors have seven items of regular income: “1) 4 wheat bazaars, 40 lockers each, 3 rubles each. from the locker - only 480 rubles. silver 2) 6 confectioneries, 50 rubles each. with each - 300 rubles. 3) 40 bakeries, 10 rubles each. with each - 400 rubles. 4) Two fairs in bulk 2000 rubles. 5) 300 shops and stores with food supplies and grape wines, 10 rubles each ... - 3000 rubles. silver. 6) 60 butcher shops, 25 rubles each. with each - 1500 rubles. and 7) ... the total income from all women who turned indecency into a craft ... about 5,000 rubles. silver per year. Thus, the entire current annual fee will be equal to 12,680 rubles. silver ... and for the deduction of 20 percent in favor of influential persons in the medical and civil parts ... it will amount to a net income of 9510 rubles, that is, 4255 rubles each. on a brother. These incomes are received only for non-intervention ... all emergency bribes ... also make up a significant figure ... Such incomes are: inspection reports, which constitute a sensitive article in a country where there are many holidays spent in drunkenness and fights, forensic autopsies, the importation of stale and suspicious products, cattle driving and, finally, recruitment sets, when such happen to the tears of mankind and to the joy of city and district doctors ... "

“The mysterious hand that feeds city and district doctors is a bribe,” Nikolai Leskov wrote in the article “A Few Words About Police Doctors in Russia”

In Leskov's story "Laughter and Grief", published in 1871, the action takes place in the 1860s: the main character lives on redemption certificates - interest-bearing papers issued during the reform of 1861. A forbidden text is found on him - Ryleev's "Dumas", and the hero is threatened with arrest. An obsessive acquaintance undertakes to brush it off: “... don’t you want me to get you a certificate that you are in the second half of pregnancy? ... They took forty rubles from my brother at a dressing station in the Crimea to attribute the concussion to his full pension, when even a mosquito did not bite him ... Take on the easiest, the so-called "treasury remedy": pretend to be crazy, put on a little melancholy talk nonsense ... Do you agree? ... And I also agree to give a hundred rubles? The hero is ready for three hundred, but so much is impossible: this will “spoil” prices in St. Petersburg, where for three hundred “they will marry your own mother and give you a document in that”.

As a result, the hero ends up in his native province, where he joins the zemstvo life. One of the projects is to build a school in every village. It is a noble cause, but they want to build at the expense of the peasants and with their hands, but now it is impossible to force them, and the peasants themselves do not understand the benefits of the doctrine. Things are going tough. And then it turns out that there is one administrator in the province, who is all right. He, "an honest and incorruptible person", "took bribes from schools." “Society complains about the landowner or neighbors,” and before delving into the matter, he asks to build a school and then come. Bribery is perceived as the norm, the men obediently "give a bribe", and he has "literally the entire area lined with schools."

It seemed that if you destroy the bribe ... then suddenly rivers of milk and honey will flow, and the truth will settle in addition to them

In real life, 5-6% of officials fell under investigation, but it came to accusations very rarely, and the highest ranks were under investigation in isolated cases. Apparently, Saltykov-Shchedrin is ironic about this in the satirical essays “Pompadours and Pompadours” (1863-1874): “It is known that at the end of the fifties a very strong persecution was raised against bribe-takers. The concept of "bribery" was then associated with the idea of some kind of ulcer that supposedly corrodes the Russian bureaucracy and serves as a considerable hindrance to the people's prosperity. It seemed that if you destroy the bribe ... then suddenly rivers of milk and honey will flow, and the truth will settle in addition to them. The result of the “persecution”, however, was the opposite: society “from a penny bribe goes directly to a thousandth, ten thousandth”, the borders of the bribe “received completely different outlines”, it “finally died, and in its place was born a “kush””. According to Saltykov-Shchedrin, a corrupt official is convenient for the authorities: "for the sake of being able to steal an extra penny," the bribe-taker is "ready to get along with any domestic policy, to believe in any God."

Railway bribe

According to Lurie, in the second half of the 19th century, when railways began to be actively laid in Russia, obtaining concessions for this construction became the most bribe-intensive. “Each contractor had a secret or open high-ranking shareholder who lobbied the interests of his “confidant” in the Winter Palace. For the Bashmakov brothers, this is the Minister of the Interior, Count Valuev and the brother of the Empress, the Duke of Hesse, for Derviz and Mecca, the Minister of the Court, Count Adlerberg, for Efimovich, the favorite of the sovereign, Princess Dolgorukaya. And although the proposed cost of a verst of the railway track, the elaboration of the project, the experience of the engineer and contractors were formally evaluated at the competitions, in fact there was a competition of influential patrons.

The most high-ranking nobles do not disdain to bribe. Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich appeals to the chief of the gendarmes, Count Shuvalov, with a request to arrange so that at the hearings in the Cabinet of Ministers, a certain railway concession goes to a certain person. When asked why His Highness wants to deal with such matters, the prince replies: “... If the committee speaks in favor of my proteges, then I will receive 200 thousand rubles; Is it possible to neglect such an amount when I am at least in a noose to climb from debts.

Judging by the story of Garin-Mikhailovsky "The Engineers", which takes place during the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, half a century later the quartermasters remained corrupt officials. For the main character, a railway engineer Kartashev, who works on the construction of a railway in Bendery, "the most unpleasant ... were relations with the commissariat." His uncle explains that the quartermasters need to “feed and drink as much as they want” and give them “kickbacks”: “for each cart, for the corresponding number of days, they will give you a receipt, and in their favor they withhold two rubles from each cart ... If you have a receipt, say, for ten thousand rubles, you will sign that you received ten, and you will receive eight. After all, if “they give a good price, you can separate two rubles, but if you don’t separate it, the whole thing will perish.”

Other bribe-takers are also not particularly shy: one engineer gives a bribe to the police in front of Kartashev, explaining: “He said that we would build a road, that the police would receive from us, that we would pay him twenty-five rubles a month, and for special incidents separately ... "This is not enough for the policeman:" And when you take reference prices, how will it be considered - especially? I had to disappoint him: "Reference prices are only for military engineers and in the water and highway departments."

19th century raiders

At the end of the 19th century, concessions for the construction of railways brought many millions of rubles to bribe-takers and covetous people.

Photo: Universal Images Group/DIOMEDIA

Corruption was also used for raiding. Mamin-Sibiryak's 1883 novel "Privalov's Millions" tells about schemes for capturing business in the middle of the century before last using "administrative resources". After the death of his wife, Alexander Privalov, a wealthy Ural gold miner and owner of the Shatrovsky factories, went on a spree and married a prima donna of a gypsy choir, who did not remain faithful to him for long, and, being exposed, killed her husband. Privalov's son Sergei - the main character - at that time was only eight. The gypsy married a lover who became the guardian of minor heirs. For five years, he "blew the last capital that remained after Privalov" and "almost put all the factories under the hammer." But the family friend and honest industrialist Bakharev energetically stands up for the young heirs, and the guardian “is forced to confine himself to pledging non-existent metal to the bank”: “First, a black blank was laid, then the first redistribution from it and, finally, finally finished high-quality iron.” This clever combination gave a whole million, but soon the story was revealed, the organizer of the scam was put on trial.

The debts of the guardian-swindler are transferred to the inheritance of the wards, and the factories are transferred under state guardianship. The business is profitable, but the rogue manager "in one year slapped a new million-dollar debt on the factories." When the adult Sergei Privalov begins to deal with the factories, these two debts with interest amount to about four million. The first and most important condition for a successful raider seizure is provided - the asset is levied with debts.

For some time, the factories were managed by Bakharev, they begin to bring up to 400 thousand rubles. annual income, and then everything goes on as before: Polovodov is at the helm - a manager who thinks only about his own pocket. According to his report, the "dividend" is only 70 thousand, and these figures are too high. Of these, it is necessary to exclude 20 thousand for the sale of the metal left after Bakharev, 15 thousand Zemstvo tax, which Polovodov did not even think of making. In total, only 35 thousand remain. Further, Polovodov, as an attorney, is entitled to 5% of net income: this will amount to three and a half thousand, and he took as many as ten.

A memorandum to the governor is being compiled, the authors of which "have spared no colors to describe the exploits of Polovodov." The governor at first abruptly turns things around, and Polovodov is removed. There is a hope to prosecute him for fraud, but the victory does not last long: Polovodov was soon reinstated in his powers again, and the governor takes Privalov rather dryly: “some skillful clerical hand has already managed to “set things up” in its own way. It is worth heroic efforts once again to convince the governor of the need to take measures to protect the interests of the heirs of the plants. “Two weeks of troubles with all sorts of clerical ordeals” lead to a new removal of Polovodov from his post, but he manages to take out a large amount from the factories: “he has three hundred thousand naked in his pocket ...”

“In a small town, up to 800 buckets of vodka were supplied in the form of bribes to the mayor, private bailiffs and quarterly guards,” writes Lev Lurie in the book “Piterschiki. Russian capitalism. First try"

The situation with the payment of debts is aggravated, but everything would be fixable if the owner himself manages the Shatrovsky factories, because it makes no sense for him to steal from himself. Until then, however, it is not allowed. The factories are still formally under state custody, and the state, by its sole decision, puts them up for tender and sells them to cover the debt. “Some company” bought them, “the factories went at the price of government debt, and the heirs of the compensation, it seems, forty thousand ...” “The company acquired the factories with an installment payment of thirty-seven years, that is, a little more than nothing. It seems that this whole company is a figurehead serving as a cover for a clever bureaucratic scam.

And all this despite the fact that during the reign of Alexander II (1855-1881), the anti-corruption policy was tightened. They began to publish data on the state of the property of officials, and it included property registered in the name of the wife. The ban on holding public office also extended to the children of noble officials convicted of corruption. Further more. Under Alexander III (1881-1894), new bans were introduced for officials that corresponded to the spirit of the times: on membership in the boards of private joint-stock companies, on receiving a commission by the official himself when placing a state loan, etc. The fight against corruption continued ...

Abramov Andrey

The work deals with the works of Russian and foreign authors who addressed the problem of corruption. Each of them has his own view on the problem. The author of the work explores the vices of literary heroes, their attitude to bribery, fraud, extortion and arbitrariness.

Download:

Preview:

INTERNET CONFERENCE FOR STUDENTS OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT G.O. SAMARA "SCIENCE. CREATION. INTELLIGENCE"

Section No. 4 Humanitarian

Topic: "Literary heroes against corruption"

11A student

name of institutionMBOU secondary school No. 108 g.o. Samara

Scientific supervisor (or teacher):Sevastyanova I.N.

Samara, 2013

Introduction 3
Chapter I. History of Corruption in Russia 5
Chapter II. Corruption in literary works 10
Chapter III. About corruption in poetry 21
Conclusion 26
References 27

Introduction

My whole thought is that if vicious people are connected between

themselves and constitute strength, then honest people need to do

just the same.

Lev Tolstoy

Corruption... It would seem, how much pain and worries can be contained in one word? There are many examples: violence, genocide, extermination. But they are all related to wartime. In peacetime, a person may encounter no less cruel examples of moral arbitrariness: the conviction of an innocent, theft of property, the "cutting" of the budget. The levers of government no longer reach the rotten bottom, mired in corruption for a long time. The only excuse for the government can be references to history - they say, they have always stolen from us. Well, and no one forgot about the famous dialogue between Prince Gorchakov and Karamzin:

Prince Gorchakov: "And what is happening in Russia?"

Karamzin: "As usual... They steal, sir..."

"They steal, sir" has long become an aphorism and sounds in the everyday life of many public figures. Therefore, listening to the centuries-old history of Russian corruption from the stands from the first people of the state, it is difficult to believe that it can be somehow eradicated. Many Russian classics reflected on this problem in their works, ridiculing the vices of civil servants and their attitude to bribery, fraud, extortion, and arbitrariness of officials.

The purpose of this work was to expose the vices of literary heroes associated with corruption.

To do this, it is necessary to solve a number of problems:

To trace the history of the development of this very "centuries-old" problem of Russian society;

Reveal corrupt officials in the works of Russian and foreign classics;

Consider the views and opinions of contemporaries of different eras.

The object of the study was Russian and foreign literature.

The subject is corruption in works.

The relevance of this topic is not in doubt even now in the conditions of current politics and a high level of bureaucratization of society.

The materials of this research work can be used in the lessons of literature and history.

Chapter I History of corruption in Russia

I would like to point out right away in this chapter that those who consider the problem of Russian corruption to be centuries-old, which originated in our country along with the advent of statehood, in my opinion, adhere to some kind of "anti-Russian" position. Here I will try to explain why.

Turning to the most ancient chronicles, one can see examples of the attitude of foreign merchants and ambassadors towards our people. I will give some of them.

In the History of the Diocese of Hamburg, the author calls Kyiv a rival of Constantinople and an adornment of the Christian world. He described Kyiv as a city where the inhabitants behave morally and do not violate the ten commandments - even the pagans do not steal or rob there.

"Annals" by Lambert Hersfeld in 1077 contains many positive lines and opinions about Rus'. According to this book, the Russians are considered to be deeply decent people, their word is reliable, and they will never appropriate the goods and gold entrusted to them. This, they say, is the difference between the Russian lands and the lands of the Scandinavian pagans and the inhabitants of the South.

Documented evidence of the attitude of the ancient Slavs to the laws of honor and a sense of justice can serve as a peace treaty between Oleg and Constantine, the Byzantine emperor - "Treaty between the Russians and the Greeks." In it, the Russian side advocated a favorable peace between both sides, in which both receive certain privileges, regardless of whether the Byzantine is on Russian soil or Russian on Byzantine land - the law in any situation was the same for everyone and the punishment was commensurate with the crime. A little later, the Slavs supplemented the agreement with a clause that consisted in protecting the goods of a foreigner, if, in the event of a natural disaster or other misfortune, his ship was wrecked on the territory of Rus'. Under this clause, the Russians undertook to protect all goods and transport them at their own expense back to the point of departure or, if this was not possible, to transport the cargo to the nearest port so that the owner could dispose of it in his own way.

All these testimonies serve as proof that the honesty of the Russians was recognized by many states and the merchants were glad to do business with them. What can I say: Russian merchants for a long time did business without any written contracts! They were confident in the honesty of both sides, which was a surprise for Western people, because they were used to seeing falsehood and criminal thoughts in the eyes of other merchants and did not limit themselves to signing contracts, but also took something as a pledge.

Of course, it would be foolish to say that there was no corruption in Rus'. It was and, like in any other country, began to emerge along with the advent of statehood. But one cannot but deny the fact that, nevertheless, the scale of bribes and bribery in our country was an order of magnitude lower than in any European one. To start talking about corruption as a system, in my opinion, starting with the reign of Ivan the Terrible. The most “bread” position in Russia in the 16th-17th centuries was the position of governor. In order to prevent excessive enrichment of the governors, the king even limited the period of their powers to two years. And so that they would not turn into “oligarchs” during these two years, their property was checked at the royal outposts when the governors returned two years later from their place of service. Voivodship carts and carts were searched without any hesitation, and if the impression arose that they were carrying too much good, then the excess was mercilessly requisitioned in favor of the treasury.

The next milestone in the development of corruption is considered to be the seizure of power by the boyars, which came from the accession of Boris Godunov in 1598. These officials, having come to power and appointing their colleagues, went so far as to rule the state together openly during the period of the Seven Boyars. This caused a further rapid growth of corruption and Peter the Great's deep dislike for these same boyars.

Although it is worth noting that under his rule, corruption, perhaps, took on the form in which we know it now. Peter cut through a “window to Europe”, built a fleet, beat the hitherto invincible Swedes, raised industry to an unprecedented level, erected Northern Palmyra among the marshes and, finally, Europeanized the country, forcing the people not only to dress, but also to think in a new way. And only corruption he could not overcome.

What only Peter I did not do to eradicate this ulcer. And he set an example for his subjects with his own behavior. Being the autocratic ruler of a vast empire, he ordered to assign himself an officer's salary, on which he lived, sometimes experiencing serious financial difficulties. When, as a result of remarriage, the salary became chronically insufficient for life, Colonel Pyotr Alekseevich Romanov asked Alexander Menshikov, who at that time had the highest military rank of Generalissimo, to petition the Senate to confer on him, the tsar, the rank of general, who was supposed to receive a higher salary.

The sovereign-reformer wanted the officials to take an example from their king - they honestly lived on one salary. Therefore, in 1715 he ordered them to pay salaries from the treasury.

To combat embezzlement in the localities, Peter I sent his commissars to the volosts, but sometimes the tsar's representatives themselves turned out to be dishonest. In 1725, commissars Artsibashev, Baranov, Volotsky were hanged for embezzlement and bribes. They were executed in the volosts, where they engaged in bribery.

Peter I tried to build a system to combat corruption in the state. Reports of "theft of the treasury" were initially dealt with by the secret office, headed by Count P.A. Tolstoy. And she worked conscientiously. The historian Karamzin wrote as follows: "The secret office worked day and night in Preobrazhensky: torture and execution served as a means of our transformation of the state." But, apparently, since the time of embezzlement cases, there have been so many cases that they were transferred from the secret office to general justice. Neither torture, nor executions, nor public disgrace stopped the bribe-takers.

One of the foreigners who visited Russia during the reign of Peter wrote: “Here they look at officials as birds of prey. They think that with their entry into office they have been given the right to suck the people to the bone and base their happiness on the destruction of their well-being.

Sometimes one gets the impression that Tsar Peter alone fought the many-headed hydra of corruption and that he was almost the only one who lived exclusively on state salaries. The rest of the nobles and officials were much more tolerant of the problem of bribery.

The daughter of Peter I, Elizabeth, who ascended the throne, did not bake as zealously as her father did about eradicating corruption. And therefore returned the country to the previous order. The payment of salaries to officials was abolished, but the death penalty for bribery was also abolished. As a result, “feeding from deeds” again became the only way for honest officials not to starve to death, and dishonest officials stopped being afraid of anything at all. Theft, bribery and covetousness reigned everywhere. And the queen could only state this fact: “The insatiable thirst for self-interest has reached the point that some places established for justice have become a marketplace, covetousness and addiction - the leadership of judges, and indulgence and omission - approval of the lawless.” The Senate tried to do something to limit the rampant corruption, but the effectiveness of its measures was small. For example, he decided to change the governor every five years, but in fact this decision remained only on paper.

Catherine II turned out to be much more faithful to the precepts of Peter I. As soon as she ascended the throne, she made it clear to her people that she did not intend to indulge bribe-takers, and to officials that their tricks would not hide from her eye.

The empress did not introduce the death penalty for the covetous, but she revived the payment of salaries to officials. And the content they established is quite decent, allowing them to live quite decently.

Here I, perhaps, will finish my short historical background on the history of the origin of Russian corruption and move on to the main part of my work, because it is during this period that literary works begin to appear that are directly related to the high rate of corruption and bribery in our country.

Chapter II. Corruption in literary works

Russian bribery was immortalized in their works by such Russian writers as A.P. Chekhov, N.V. Gogol, M.E. Saltykov- Shchedrin, I.I. Lazhechnikov, A.V. Sukhovo-Kobylin and many others.

In the plays of A.N. Ostrovsky raised the problem of abuses in the state apparatus. In "Profitable Place" we meet Zhdanov - a hero of a weak character, driven by "need, circumstances, lack of education of relatives, surrounding debauchery." He sees bureaucratic arbitrariness in the person of Belogubov, for whom happiness is taking bribes so that “the hand does not go wrong”, living “in contentment” and being a “respected” person.

Vivid artistic images of "reborn" Soviet employees were created by V. Mayakovsky, I. Ilf and E. Petrov, M. Zoshchenko, M. Bulgakov and other authors. The name of one of the heroes of the book by I. Ilf and E. Petrov "The Golden Calf" Koreiko, a modest employee of an unremarkable institution and at the same time an underground millionaire who made a fortune on shady illegal frauds, is still a household name.

Zoshchenko makes the corruption of many segments of the population the main theme of his story "Weak container". There he describes an incident at the train station: a long line at the booth for the reception of goods, where the worker checks the weight of the container and, if necessary, asks to strengthen it. It is the turn of an optical factory worker carrying a batch of optics. It turns out that he, like everyone else, has a "weak container." This fact greatly embarrassed the worker, because the boxes were state-owned and he could not carry them back. Then he decides to give a bribe, but this is immediately stopped and scolded, although they are allowed to approach another worker and strengthen, "since these are state boxes."

It would seem, where does corruption and bribery? The workers showed their best side and with nobility rejected the money offered to them. But then their true appearance is revealed. “And, until my turn has come, I go up to the worker and ask him, just in case, to strengthen my dubious container. He asks eight rubles from me. I speak:

What are you, I say, stunned, take eight rubles for three nails.
He tells me in an intimate voice:

That's right, I would have done it for you, but he says, enter my peak position - I have to share with this crocodile.
Here I begin to understand all the mechanics.
- So, - I say, - you share with the weigher?

Here he is somewhat embarrassed that he let it slip, carries various nonsense and fables, mutters about a small salary, about high prices, makes me a large discount and gets to work.

This, in fact, shows the whole essence of Russian corruption: it seems that no one has a "stigma in the gun", but it's better to organize a small "present" anyway, so that the matter is better argued.

A more serious situation with fraud can be traced in the work of N.V. Gogol "Dead Souls".

There is an excellent description of Chichikov's career in customs: "... but our hero endured everything, endured strongly, patiently endured, and - finally moved to the customs service. It must be said that this service had long been a secret subject of his thoughts. He saw how smart Customs officials made up foreign gizmos, what kind of china and cambric they sent to gossips, aunts and sisters. More than once for a long time he had said with a sigh: “That would be where to get over: the border is close, and enlightened people, and what thin Dutch shirts you can get.

For a short time there was no life from him for smugglers. This was a thunderstorm and despair of all Polish Jews. His honesty and incorruptibility were irresistible, almost unnatural. He did not even make himself a small capital out of various confiscated goods and selected some gizmos that did not enter the treasury in order to avoid unnecessary correspondence.

At that time, a strong society of smugglers was formed in a deliberately correct way; the audacious enterprise promised profits in the millions. He had long had information about him and even refused to bribe those sent, saying dryly: "It's not time yet."

Having received everything at his disposal, at that very moment he let the society know, saying: "Now is the time." The calculation was too correct. Here in one year he could receive what he would not have won in twenty years of the most zealous service. Before, he did not want to enter into any relations with them, because he was nothing more than a mere pawn, therefore, he would have received little; but now ... now it’s a completely different matter: he could offer any conditions ... "

All Chichikov's external neatness, his good manners contrast sharply with the internal dirt and uncleanliness of this hero, fully completing the image of a "scoundrel", "acquirer" and "predator", who uses everything to achieve his main goal - profit and acquisition.

Here, Gogol's vision of the situation echoes that of Ostrovsky, whose characters in The Thunderstorm are endowed with the same opinion about corruption, that it is harmless and even "useful" in its own way. Kuligin speaks about these vices in his monologue. From it we learn that the city is inhabited by philistines, officials and merchants. That in philistinism one cannot see anything but "rudeness and bare poverty." The reason for this poverty is also named by Kuligin, who also belongs to the bourgeois class: “And we, sir, will never break out of this bark! Because honest labor will never earn us more daily bread. Kuligin realizes the bitter truth: "whoever has money, sir, he tries to enslave the poor, so that he can make even more money for his free labors." Kuligin, referring to the local mayor, tells how Savel Prokofiich Dikoi, Boris's uncle, counts on the peasants: he constantly does not give them a penny. Diky's position is simple and understandable: “Is it worth it, your honor, to talk about such trifles with you! A lot of people stay with me every year; you understand: I won’t pay them a penny more per person, I make thousands of this, that’s how it is; I'm fine!" Profit is what makes Diky, as well as other merchants of Kalinov, deceive, cheat, underweight - such words as honor and conscience simply do not exist in the lexicon of representatives of the merchant class.

Kuligin says bitterly that the merchants do not get along with each other either: “They undermine each other's trade, and not so much out of self-interest, but out of envy. They are at enmity with each other ... ”And in this enmity, uneducated, illiterate merchants resort to the help of local corrupt officials:“ they get drunken clerks into their tall mansions, such, sir, clerks, that there is no human sight on him, human form is lost. And those, for a small blessing, on stamp sheets, malicious slander scribble on their neighbors.
It’s for these feuds that tight-fisted merchants, who are not able to honestly comb with the peasants for goods, do not spare money: “I,” he says, “will spend, and it will cost him a penny.” Kuligin even admits that he “wanted to depict the manners of the city of Kalinov in verse…”.

In this monologue by Kuligin, a satirical picture of the life and customs of the Kalinovites is given, which is no coincidence that the musty and inert world of the merchants, based on the power of money, envy, and the desire to harm their competitors, was called by the critic A. N. Dobrolyubov "dark kingdom".

Another work by Gogol comes to mind, ridiculing the vices of dishonest officials. This is the comedy "The Inspector General". If among the galaxy of people who do not consider a bribe something far from absolute nobility and mark someone, then the first on the list, of course, will be the mayor. He is the central figure in the city and the most significant among the other officials. It is around him that all life in the city revolves. What is a mayor? Not stupid: he is more sober than everyone else, judges the reasons for the arrival of the auditor. In relations with his subordinates, he is rude, unrestrained, despotic. extremely polite. The mayor has his own philosophical position, which is subject to life principles. The goal of life is to rise to the rank of general. This explains his attitude to both subordinates and superiors. In this he corresponds to the entire bureaucracy of his era, where hypocrisy, lies, bribery have become the norm.

The mayor takes bribes and does not consider it something shameful or wrong, on the contrary, it happened that way, what's wrong with that. There are mistakes in a person’s life, so that’s why he is a person to make mistakes - this, according to the mayor, is the highest predestination: “... there is no person who would not have some sins behind him. It's just the way God designed it." In order to stay longer in the chair and make a career, you need to submit all the miscalculations to the authorities in a form convenient for him, and to benefit from this for yourself. So it was with the church: the amount allocated for the construction was in his pocket, and the authorities were informed that "it started to be built, but burned down." There is nothing dishonest for a mayor to release someone from recruitment for a bribe or to celebrate a name day twice a year. In both cases, the goal is the same - enrichment. He also bears his surname to match his inner world - Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky.

The court and all legal procedures in the city are carried out by judge Ammos Fedorovich Lyashsin-Tyapkin. The surname is quite consistent with the attitude of the judge to his service. In court, he occupies a place and a position that gives him power in the city. As for the court, everything is so confused there, saturated with denunciations and slander, that you should not even look into court cases, you still can’t figure out where the truth is, where the lie is. Lyapkin-Tyapkin "was elected a judge by the will of the nobility", which allows him not only to freely keep even with the mayor himself, but also to challenge his opinion.

The judge is the smartest of all the officials in the city. During his life, he read five or six books, so he considers himself "somewhat free-thinking." The favorite occupation of the judge is hunting, to which he devotes all his free time. He not only justifies his bribery, but also sets himself as an example: “I tell everyone openly that I take bribes, but why bribes? Greyhound puppies. It's a completely different matter." In general, using the example of Lyapkin-Tyapkin, Gogol showed a typical image of a judge of that time.

Postmaster Ivan Kuzmich Shpekin is engaged in the most "harmless" business - he opens and reads other people's letters. He, like everyone else, does not see anything reprehensible in his occupation: "I love death to know what is new in the world."

With the news of the arrival of the auditor, the quiet course of life in a provincial town is disturbed. There is confusion among officials. Everyone is afraid for himself and thinks how to deflect the blow. The superintendent of the schools is trembling with fear, the postmaster continues to open letters, though now “for the common good”, Strawberry scribbles denunciations. The mayor's reputation is also under attack. He has more bribes, here not only “fur coats and shawls”, but also “cools of goods from merchants”, and more significant power.

At the general council, officials decided to restore order in the city and give a bribe to the auditor. Restoring order was reduced to window dressing: “removing the hunting rapnik that hung in the presence” and cleaning the street along which the auditor was supposed to enter the city. As for the bribe, the alleged auditor Khlestakov accepted it with joy. In essence, Khlestakov is the same petty official, only from St. Petersburg, his views, life principles are no different from the views of his provincial colleagues. He is “somewhat stupid and, as they say, without a king in his head,” but he knows how to splurge, dexterous, evasive and impudent - a typical representative of the bureaucratic caste of the era of Nicholas I.

All the characters that Gogol showed in his comedy are generalized images of the entire bureaucratic Russia of the 30s of the 19th century, where bribery, embezzlement, denunciations were considered the norm. Belinsky, describing Gogol's comedy, said that bureaucracy is "a corporation of various service thieves and robbers."

A number of works by Russian classics, which denounced the bribery and bribery of many officials, continues "Woe from Wit" by A. S. Griboyedov. Lines from this immortal work have been immortalized in the memory of many generations, and to this day, any sharp quote on the topic of the day can originate from this comedy.

For example, the distribution of places and titles. Subservience, lies, flattery, sycophancy, bribery are inherent in gentlemen from high society. With the help of these "merits" promotion was ensured. Noble kinship also contributed to the promotion of ranks:

With me, employees of strangers are very rare;

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

How will you begin to introduce to the baptism whether, to the town,

Well, how not to please your own little man!

The protagonist of the work, Chatsky, could not define himself in this endless game of pretense, envy, ranks and noisy balls of that hour of Moscow:

Where, show us, fathers of the fatherland,

Which should we take as samples?

Are not these rich in robbery?

They found protection from court in friends, in kinship,

Magnificent building chambers,

Where they overflow in feasts and extravagance,

And where foreign clients will not resurrect

The meanest traits of the past life.

Yes, and who in Moscow did not clamp their mouths

Lunches, dinners and dances?

Chatsky sharply opposes arbitrariness, despotism, flattery, hypocrisy, and the emptiness of those vital interests by which the conservative circles of the nobility live.

The traditions of Russian satirists continue in the work of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. In "Tales" Saltykov-Shchedrin ridicules government officials, landowners, liberal intelligentsia. Showing the helplessness and worthlessness of officials, the parasitism of landlords, and at the same time emphasizing the industriousness and dexterity of the Russian peasant, Saltykov-Shchedrin expresses his main idea in fairy tales: the peasant has no rights, is overwhelmed by the ruling estates.

So in “The Tale of How One Man Feeded Two Generals,” Saltykov-Shchedrin shows the complete helplessness of two generals who found themselves on a desert island. Despite the fact that there was an abundance of game, and fish, and fruits around, they almost died of hunger.

The officials, who were “born, raised and grown old” in some kind of registry, did not understand anything, and did not know “even any words”, except perhaps the phrase: “Accept the assurance of my perfect respect and devotion”, the generals do nothing they did not know how and quite sincerely believed that rolls grow on trees. And suddenly the thought dawns on them: we need to find a man! After all, he must be, just “hiding somewhere, shirking work.” And the man really was found. He fed the generals and immediately, on their orders, obediently twists the rope with which they tie him to a tree so that he does not run away.

The theme of servility can be continued by the great Russian classic A.P. Chekhov. In the story “The Death of an Official”, the writer showed how the petty official Chervyakov, the official’s surname speaks for itself, emphasizing the humiliation of the executor, being in a humiliated position, not only does not seek to get out of it, but he himself proclaims slavish behavior, which became the subject of ridicule in story.

In his other story, "Thick and Thin," Chekhov showed that even old friends are subject to such vices as servility and pretense. The heroes of the story "thick" and "thin" start a conversation. From it we learn the names: Michael and Porfiry. Thin Porfiry, not being modest, boasts of himself, his wife and son. He launched into reminiscences, then began to spread news about himself, about what had happened in his life since leaving school. The son of Porfiry, who was introduced to Mikhail, did not immediately take off his cap to greet his father's friend, but only after a little thought (estimating whether the rank of his father's fat rank was not lower).

Mikhail was really interested in Porfiry's life, he questioned him, and rejoiced at the meeting. Porfiry himself behaves uninhibitedly and at ease. But when the subtle one learns that Mikhail is a secret adviser and has two stars, then this ease disappears. He cringes and starts acting obsequious, calling an old friend "Your Excellency". Such behavior is disgusting and incomprehensible to Michael. After all, he spoke to Porfiry as to an old friend, but as soon as he said his rank, he immediately humiliated himself in front of him. The fat one is trying to object to the thin one: "Why is this servility here?" But the thin one only giggled disgustingly. Then Michael turned away from Porfiry and shook his hand in farewell.
A.S. Pushkin in his work "Dubrovsky" revealed another image of a man whose moral principles allow him to give bribes and believe in his own impunity. It's about Troyekurov. He is a spoiled and licentious man, intoxicated by the consciousness of his strength. Wealth, family, connections - everything provides him with a free life. Troekurov spends his time in gluttony, drunkenness, and voluptuousness. Humiliation of the weak, like baiting a gaping guest with a bear, these are his pleasures.

With all this, he is not a born villain. He was friends with Dubrovsky's father for a very long time. Having quarreled with him in the kennel, Troekurov takes revenge on his friend with all the force of his tyranny. With the help of bribes, he sued the estate from the Dubrovskys, drove his former friend to insanity and death. But the tyrant feels that he has gone too far. Immediately after the trial, he goes to reconcile with a friend. But he is late: father Dubrovsky is dying, and his son drives him out.

A.S. Pushkin drew analogies between the bureaucracy and the Russian nobility, whose methods of housekeeping are also in doubt. In the image of Troekurov, he wanted to show that the trouble was not in the landowner himself, but in the social structure of Russian life (serfdom, the omnipotence of the nobles). It develops in an unenlightened nobleman a belief in his impunity and unlimited possibilities (“That is the strength to take away the estate without any right”). Even love for children is distorted in Troekurov to the limit. He adores his Masha, but makes her unhappy by passing her off as a rich, but unloved old man.

Examples of foreign works devoted to corruption topics include such books as The Canterbury Tales by J. Chaucer, The Merchant of Venice, Measure for Measure by W. Shakespeare, The Divine Comedy by A. Dante. So, seven centuries ago, Dante placed corrupt officials in the darkest and deepest circles of hell.

I would like to note the works based on real stories and facts, such as: "Public Enemies" by Brian Barrow, "Schindler's List" by Thomas Keneally, etc. But if in the first work corruption acts as a lever for controlling the police by gangster syndicates, which regularly did the corresponding "contributions", then in the second bribes and gifts to the highest ranks of fascist Germany were made by Schindler to save his small Jewish "autonomy" located at his factory.

Chapter III. On corruption in poetry

The vices of officials were not ignored by poets and fabulists. At the beginning of the XIX century. great I.A. Krylov dedicated the fable "The Fox and the Groundhog" to this topic.

“Where is it, gossip, you run without looking back!”

The groundhog asked the fox.
“Oh, my dove-kumanek!
I endure slander and expelled for bribes.

The symbolic phrase "Snout in fluff" from this fable has long become an aphorism and began to serve as an ironic definition of the actions of dishonest officials and employees.

The critical sharpness and scale of social problems is contained in Krylov's fables. So the Little Crow (a character of the fable of the same name, 1811) saw how the Eagle snatched a lamb from the herd. "Cooked" this Voronenka,

Yes, he only thinks like this: “Take it like that,
And then the claws to dirty!
There are also Eagles, apparently, rather bad.

The little crow decides to carry the ram away. The sad end of the impudent and thin-born chick, who decided to imitate the Eagle, and even outdo him in theft, is a foregone conclusion. The moral of the fable translates the resolution of the plot conflict into a purely social plane: "What thieves get away with, thieves are beaten for that." How can one not recall here the famous shout of the Gogol mayor “You take it not according to your rank!”, With which he upsets the presumptuous quarter. In Krylov's little fable, in its own way, as in an embryo, the picture of the total corruption of the bureaucratic apparatus, which Gogol will deploy in The Inspector General, is anticipated. “Take according to rank” is the first commandment of the bureaucratic class. And in Krylov's vocalization, it characterizes the system of official hierarchy of feudal Russia better than the "Table of Ranks".

In connection with the problem of corruption, one cannot but recall N.A. Nekrasov. Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov was an artist who was surprisingly sensitive and attentive to people's problems and aspirations. His soul and heart responded to people's troubles. Only a selflessly devoted artist could produce such a poem as “Thinking at the Front Door.”

The habit of slavish servility of "free citizens" is almost terrifying. Here, the ritual is brought to the point of absurdity; no one is surprised by such subservience.
Writing down your name and rank,
Guests are leaving home
So deeply satisfied with myself
What do you think - that is their calling!
The poet gives free rein to satire, he despises these “serfs of the soul” and makes the reader marvel at the established order of things, when a nobleman unceremoniously uses his high position, taking groveling for granted, as an “expression of respect” for him. But the reader understands that they worship the place occupied by a person, and not his dignity and intelligence. This person is the owner of other people's destinies, it depends on him which visitor will come out singing, and who in tears. Ordinary peasant walkers are not at all allowed to reach the “high” person, because the nobleman “does not like ragged mob”, obviously offending his “aesthetic feeling”. But most of all, the poet is outraged not even by the very neglect of people, but by their reaction to what is happening.
And they went, burning with the sun,
Repeating: "God judge him!",
Spreading hopelessly hands,
And as long as I could see them,
With their heads uncovered...
Submission and forgiveness are unacceptable. Nekrasov is outraged by the patience of the people. The poet acts as a voluntary defender of the “disenfranchised” and “wordless”. Calls on the nobleman to change his mind, to take up his duties - to serve the people and the state, but ... "the happy are deaf to good."
The author, outraged by lawlessness, paints a picture of the life of the “happy” and his death.This is no longer just an intercession for the people, but a call to rebellion, an appeal of a patriot who does not have the strength to remain silent, seeing the injustice of power and the wordless humility of the people, who are not able, and maybe not willing to rise to their own defense.

The bureaucracy rotten from the head is also mentioned by one of the most famous poets of the 20th century Vladimir Mayakovsky in his poem "Bribery":

"...everywhere

Him

By scout.

He knows,

Who to put a foot on

and where

Have a handout.

Everyone in place:

bride -

in the trust

godfather -

in Gum

Brother -

to drug commissariat....

He's a specialist

But of a special kind:

In a word

Erase mystic.

He literally took

"brotherhood of nations"

like the happiness of brothers,

aunt

And sisters.

He thinks:

How can he cut staff?

Kat

Not eyes, but coals ...

Maybe,

Place

Leave for Nata?

Nata has rounded shapes."

Mayakovsky's harsh style, which can also be traced in his other works, in relation to bribe-takers acquires a special ironic character when it comes to the vices of officials. Therefore, the series continues another work by Mayakovsky, dedicated to the fruits of corruption - bribes: "Attentive attitude towards bribe-takers":

"I come and cry out all my requests,

Decline your cheek to a light tunic.

The official thinks: “Oh, it would be possible!

That way, I’ll fly a bird for two hundred.

How many times under the canopy of officials,

He brought resentment to them.

"Oh, it would be possible, - the official thinks, -

We'll milk a butterfly for three hundred."

I know you need two hundred and three hundred -

They will take it anyway, if not those, then these;

And I will not offend a bailiff by swearing:

Maybe the bailiff has children ... "

"Take it, darlings, take it, what's there!

You are our fathers and we are your children.

From the cold without getting tooth to tooth,

Let's get naked under the naked sky.

Take it, darlings! But just right away

Never write about it again."

In the years preceding the revolution, Mayakovsky rejected the bourgeois world. His famous “Hymns” became satirical poems of the pre-revolutionary period: “Hymn to the Judge”, “Hymn to the Bribe”, “Hymn to Dinner” ... The very names of many hymns contain a comic discrepancy, because the hymn is a solemn song, which is dedicated in honor of dinner or bribes are just ridiculous.In The Hymn to the Judge, Mayakovsky, in order to avoid the persecution of censorship, moves the scene to the country of Peru, although, of course, he criticizes Russian judicial officials. In Peru, the country was taken over by insensitive "dull" judges, with "eyes as strict as a post." They hate all living things, they imposed prohibitions on everything:

And birds, and dances, and their Peruvians

surrounded by articles.

The judge's eyes are a pair of tin cans

flickers in the garbage pit.

Judges themselves do not know how to enjoy life and forbid others to do it, they strive to regulate everything, to make it colorless, dull. So, under the judge's gaze, an orange-blue peacock's tail faded. The people under the rule of evil judges are given in the form of convicts. It is possible to free the convicts only by eliminating the judges who "interfere with both the bird and the dance, and me, and you, and Peru." It's like the moral of a fable.

Griboyedov's and Gogol's motifs are resurrected in the "Hymns" dedicated to bribe-takers:

And there's nothing to prove- seek and take,

After all, the newspaper scum will be silent.

Like sheep, they must be sheared and shaved.

Why be ashamed in your own country?

In the once flourishing country, now only the ringing of shackles is heard, “birdless” and “desertion” have come. From one deathly look of the judge, the peacock's tail faded. The judges even banned volcanoes by putting up signs that read "Non-Smoking Valley".

Many modern poets also wrote satirical dedications to a bribe. Here, for example, is a poem by N. Ermolaev:

About a bribe

Bribe must be respected

Bribery must be legalized

Don't offend anyone

We all need to calm down.

After all, whoever has

who does not have, does not give,

Takes the one who has the power,

Who does not have, does not give.

We need to put up with a bribe,

And you don't have to open everything

Do not rely on morality

Quietly, peacefully they can take.

After all, the poor will not lose:

They have nothing to lose

And they won't give

They have nothing to give

They can only dream about

When everyone is rich

Bribes will be given to everyone

It is impossible not to agree with the opinion of L Gray, expressed in the poem "About bribes"

In the fight against bribes, others offer

Seriously punish and severely condemn.

Only not those who extort these bribes,

And those who were forcibly forced to "give".

Agree completely!! When it won't be at all

All who disturb the hearing of an official with a plea,

Look, damn corruption will fade

And, gradually, it will die by itself.

Is it possible to write about bribes to poets!

Dear ones, we have no time. Can not be so.

You who are bribe-takers

At least that's why

No, don't take bribes.

Andrei Burilichev prophesies punishment for all bribe-takers:

Before you take, think, my friend:

What are you sacrificing for a bag of money?

Do you want to grab some money?

Remember! You have to pay for everything!

In another poem, Symbolokov Valery condemns corruption and urges to remember honor:

Corruption in power is acquisitiveness and bribes.
Corruption in power is a corrupt environment.
Corruption in power is a criminal horde.
Save honor!
Save honor!!
Save honor!!! Lord.

Conclusion

Thus, after analyzing all the works, one can trace not only the history of the peculiar evolution of corruption in society (from small bribes to large frauds), but also the history of the development of attitudes towards it. The authors ridiculed the vices of petty officials, accusing them of cowardice and pretense in front of superiors, and were horrified by the enormity of the moral fall of big schemers who put money above personal values. Many literary heroes openly denounce corrupt officials.

The only possible method of fighting corruption is a kind of revision of the moral values of society. After rereading the above works, it is clear that the root of all evils is not only in the arbitrariness of officials, but also in the moral position of ordinary citizens who present these bribes. People, blaming bureaucracy, forget that they are the catalyst for all processes in society, both positive and negative. Therefore, the problem can be corrected only by uniting, as Leo Tolstoy said.

For society, corruption has become one of the most acute problems. Every day in the media we hear about corruption and bribery. This negative phenomenon permeated the entire society.

Almost every resident of our country has faced this in one way or another.

phenomenon. One should not think that the fight against corruption and bribery is going on somewhere far away, in our society. Society is us. Let's help our government

suggest measures to combat bribery.

List of used literature

Gogol N.V. Dead Souls. ABC. 2012
Gogol N.V. Auditor. ABC. 2012
Griboyedov A.S. Woe from the mind. ID Meshcheryakov. 2013
Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. ALPHA BOOK 2008
http://www.litra.ru/
http://www.folk-tale.narod.ru/autorskaz/Krylov/Lisitsa-i-Surok.html
http://etkovd.ucoz.ru/forum/44-278-1
http://www.ngavan.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=1081

"Woe from Wit". Maid Lisa

Liza is a classic type of maid who suits her mistress with her love affairs. She is a serf of the Famusovs, but in the house of her masters, Liza is in the position of a servant-friend of Sophia. She is sharp on the tongue, she has free manners and freedom in dealing with Chatsky and Sophia. Since Lisa grew up with her educated young lady, her speech is a mixture of folksy and cutesy, so natural in the mouth of a maid. This half-lady, half-servant plays the role of Sophia's companion. Lisa is an active participant in the comedy, she is both cunning, shielding the young lady, and laughing at her, evading the lordly courtship Famusova says: “Let go, anemones yourself, come to your senses, you are old people.” He recalls Chatsky, with whom Sophia was brought up together, regretting that the young lady had lost interest in him. With Lisa, Molchalin keeps on an equal footing, trying to care for her until the young lady sees this.

She to him, and he to me,

And I ... only I crush to death in love .-

And how not to fall in love with the barman Petrusha!

Fulfilling the instructions of her young lady, Liza almost sympathizes with the love affair and even tries to reason with Sophia, saying that "there will be no such use in love." Lisa, unlike Sophia, is well aware that Molchalin is not a couple for her mistress and that Famusov will never give Sophia as a wife to Molchalin. He needs a son-in-law who has a position in society and a fortune. Fearing a scandal, Famusov will send Sophia to his aunt in the Saratov wilderness, but after a while he will try to marry a man of his circle. A more brutal reprisal awaits the serfs. Famusov first of all vents evil on the servants. He orders Lisa: “If you please, go to the hut, march, go after the birds.” And the porter Filka threatens to be exiled to Siberia: "To work you, to settle you." From the lips of the feudal master, the servants hear their own sentence.

"Captain's daughter". "Dubrovsky". Anton, babysitter

Anton and the nanny ……….- servants from the work “Dubrovsky”. They are representatives of the serf household people, devoted to their masters to the point of selflessness, who respected them for their high honesty and devotion. Despite the difficult living conditions, these servants retained a warm human heart, a bright mind, and attention to people.

In the image of Anton, Pushkin captured the sober and sharp people's mind, self-esteem and independence, the gift of wit and apt and vivid speech. In his speech, there is an abundance of proverbs, figurativeness of speech: “often he is his own judge”, “he doesn’t put a penny”, “on parcels”, “not only the skin, but also the meat will be pulled off”.

Anton knew Vladimir as a child, taught him how to ride a horse, amused him. He was strongly attached to Vladimir, whom he remembered as a child and then fell in love with, but at the same time he expresses his feelings for Vladimir in the form familiar to him as a serf ("bowed to him to the ground")

Anton has no slavish fear in relation to the masters. He, like other serfs, hates the cruel landowner Troekurov, he is not going to submit to him, he is ready to fight him.

Vladimir Dubrovsky's nanny She was a kind woman who was attentive to people, although she was far from thinking about the possibility of fighting the landlords.

She was very attached to the Dubrovsky family: this is pity and concern for the old man Dubrovsky, concern about his affairs, about the decision of the court, love for Vladimir, whom she nursed and affectionately calls in her letter “my clear falcon”. Her letter also indicates expressions that were familiar to a serf when addressing a master and which were explained by his servitude (“your faithful slave”, “and we are yours”, “does he serve you well”). But when meeting with Vladimir, the nanny behaves not like with a gentleman, but like with a loved one (“she hugged me with tears ...”).

"The Captain's Daughter" Servant Savelich.

One of the brightest images from the people is the servant Savelich (“The Captain's Daughter”). Without the "shadow of slavish humiliation" Savelich appears before us. The great inner nobility, spiritual richness of his nature is fully revealed in the completely disinterested and deep human attachment of a poor, lonely old man to his pet.

Pushkinsky Savelyich is convinced that serfs must faithfully serve their masters. But his devotion to his masters is far from slavish humiliation. Let us recall his words in a letter to his master Grinev-father, who, having learned about the duel of his son, reproaches Savelich for neglect. The servant, in response to rude, unfair reproaches, writes: "... I am not an old dog, but your faithful servant, I obey the master's orders and have always served you diligently and lived to gray hair." In the letter, Savelich calls himself a “slave,” as was customary then when serfs addressed their masters, but the whole tone of his letter breathes a sense of great human dignity, imbued with bitter reproach for an undeserved insult.

A serf, a courtyard man, Savelyich is full of a sense of dignity, he is smart, smart, he has a sense of responsibility for the task assigned. And a lot is entrusted to him - he is actually engaged in raising the boy. He taught him to read. Forcibly deprived of his family, Savelich felt truly paternal love for the boy and youth, showed not servile, but sincere, cordial care for Pyotr Grinev.

More acquaintance with Savelich begins after the departure of Pyotr Grinev from his parental home. And every time Pushkin creates situations in which Grinev commits acts, missteps, and Savelich rescues him, helps, saves him. The very next day after leaving home, Grinev got drunk drunk, lost a hundred rubles to Zurin, and "dined at Arinushka's." Savelich "gasped" when he saw the drunken master, while Grinev called him a "grunt" and ordered him to put himself to bed. The next morning, showing masterly power, Grinev orders to pay the lost money, telling Savelich that he is his master. Such is the moral justifying Grinev's behavior.

The landlord "child" deliberately puts on "adult" rudeness, wanting to escape from the care of the "uncle", to prove that he is no longer "a child". At the same time, he "feels sorry for the poor old man", he feels remorse and "silent remorse". After some time, Grinev directly asks for forgiveness from Savelich and reconciles with him.

When Savelich learns about Grinev's duel with Shvabrin, he rushes to the place of the duel with the intention of protecting his master, Grinev not only did not thank the old man, but also accused him of denouncing his parents. If it were not for Savelich's intervention at the time of the trial and the oath to Pugachev, Grinev would have been hanged. He was ready to take Grinev's place under the gallows. And Pyotr Grinev will also risk his life when he rushes to the rescue of Savelich captured by the Pugachevites.

Savelich, unlike the rebellious peasants, is devoted to Grinev, he protects their property and, like gentlemen, considers Pugachev a robber. A striking episode of the work is Savelich's demand to return the things selected by the rebels.

Savelyich left the crowd to give Pugachev his register. Kholop Savelich knows how to read and write. The rebel and the leader of the uprising is illiterate. "What's this?" - Pugachev asked importantly. - "Read it, so you will deign to see," Savelich answered. Pugachev accepted the paper and looked at it for a long time with a significant air. "What are you writing so cleverly?" - he said at last - “Our bright eyes cannot make out anything here. Where is my chief secretary?

The comical behavior of Pugachev and the childishness of his game do not humiliate the rebel, but Savelich, thanks to the situation created, does not humiliate himself with a servile request to return stolen master's robes, linen Dutch shirts with cuffs, and a cellar with tea utensils. The scale of interests of Pugachev and Savelich are incommensurable. But, defending the plundered good, Savelich is right in his own way. And we cannot remain indifferent to the courage and dedication of the old man. Boldly and fearlessly, he turns to the impostor, not thinking about what threatens him with the demand to return things "stolen by villains", he also remembered the hare sheepskin coat presented to Pugachev by Grinev at the first meeting in a snowstorm. Grinev's generous gift to an unknown "peasant" who saved the heroes during a snowstorm, Savelich's ingenuity and dedication will be saving for both the servant and the young officer.

"Dead Souls". Parsley, Selifan.

Selifan and Petrushka are two serf servants. They are given as a convincing example of the destructive influence of the system of serfdom on the people. But neither Selifan nor Petrushka can be considered as representatives of the peasant people as a whole.

The coachman Selifan and the footman Petrushka are two serf servants of Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov, they are serfs, that is, serfs, torn off the land by the master and taken into personal service. In order for them to take better care of the master, courtyards were very often not allowed to marry (and women to marry). Their life is hard.

Petrushka “even had a noble motivation for enlightenment, that is, for reading books, the content of which was not difficult for him: it didn’t matter to him whether the adventures of a hero in love, just a primer or a prayer book, he read everything with equal attention ... Although Gogol humorously describes the process of reading serf servant Chichikov, his “passion for reading”, but still the fact of the spread of literacy among the serfs is important in itself. In all the guise and behavior of Petrushka, in his gloomy look, silence, drunkenness, his deep dissatisfaction with life and hopeless despair are expressed.

Chichikov shows much more "participation" for the dead peasants than for the living Selifan or Petrushka who belong to him.

Petrushka's friend Selifan is also curious. We can learn something about Selifan's concepts when he is blissfully drunk driving his master from Malinovka and, as usual, talking to the horses. He praises the venerable bay horse and brown-haired Assessor, who “do their duty” and reproaches the crafty lazy Chubary: “Oh, barbarian! You damned Bonaparte! .. No, you live in truth when you want to be respected.

The servants of Chichikov are also characterized by that “on their own mind” secrecy of the peasants, who will appear when the gentlemen talk to them and extort something from them: here the “muzhiks” pretend to be fools, because who knows what the gentlemen are up to, but something stupid of course. This is what Petrushka and Selifan did when the officials of the city of NN began to extort information about Chichikov from them, because “this class of people has a very strange custom. If you ask him directly about something, he will never remember, will not take it all into his head, and even simply answer that he does not know, and if you ask about something else, then he will drag it in and tell with such details even if you don't want to know.

In his works, for the first time, he raised the theme of the “idiocy” of slavery, a downtrodden, disenfranchised and hopeless existence; this theme is embodied in the image of Petrushka with his strange way of reading books and all the features of his dull appearance, and partly in Selifan, in his habitual patience, his conversations with horses (with whom should he talk, if not with horses!), His reasoning about the dignity of his master and about the fact that it is not harmful to flog a person.

"Inspector". Osip.

Osip's words about the charms of life in the capital, in essence, give an idea of Petersburg, in which tens of thousands of courtyards, huddled in miserable closets of noble mansions, lead a forced, idle, in essence bitter and hateful existence.

Osip's monologue occupies a significant place in comedy. It is in him that some aspects of Petersburg life arise, the product of which was Khlestakov. Osip reports that Khlestakov is not an auditor, but an aristocrat, and this gives the whole further action a sharply comic coloring.

With annoyance, Osip pronounces the first lines of his monologue. He seems to be complaining about the unlucky master, because of which the servant must experience hunger and humiliation.

Osip narrates irritably and grouchily about Khlestakov. But when he remembered the village, where he could lie on the floor and eat pies all his life, his intonation changes, it becomes dreamily melodious. However, Osip does not have any antipathy towards St. Petersburg either. Talking about the “delicate conversations” and “haberdashery” of Petersburgers, Osip becomes more and more animated and almost reaches delight.

The memory of the owner makes him anxious and angry again, and he begins to read Khlestakov's morality. The conflict of the situation is obvious: after all, Khlestakov is not in the room. Osip himself eventually understands the helplessness of his teachings addressed to the absent person, and his tone becomes sad, even melancholy: “Oh, my God, at least some cabbage soup! It would seem that now the whole world has eaten.

The appearance of Khlestakov, the scenes with Osip allow us to notice in Khlestakov a strange mixture of beggary and lordly arrogance, helplessness and self-confident contempt, frivolity and exactingness, courteous courtesy and arrogance.

Internal tension is born by another conflict, deep and not only comic. It is a conflict between truth and deceit, error and truth. The plot of this conflict is the monologue of Osip, who, after the gossip of Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky about the passing auditor, tells us about Khlestakov, which makes us understand how little his master resembles the “damned incognito.” Obviously, it is no coincidence that Gogol instructs Osip to open the conflict between truth and deceit - a man from the people, with clear common sense and an independent mind.

"Oblomov". Zakhar.

The image of Zakhar, the valet, the servant of Ilya Ilyich from childhood, also helps to better understand the image of the main character. Zakhar is the second Oblomov, his kind of double. The methods of revealing the image are the same. The novel traces the fate of the hero, his relationship with the master, character, passions. A detailed description of the room, a portrait of the hero is given. Several details in the description of Zakhar's appearance are interesting. The author highlights sideburns. They are mentioned at the end of the novel: "The sideburns are still big, but crumpled and tangled like felt.". Just like a dressing gown and a sofa, Oblomov's constant companions, a couch and a frock coat are Zakhar's irreplaceable things. These are symbolic details. The couch tells us about laziness, contempt for work, the frock coat (by the way, with a hole) about the veneration of the master; it is also a memory of the beloved Oblomovka. Goncharov describes in detail the character of Zakhar, noting his laziness, impracticality (everything falls out of hand) and devotion to the master. Devotion is noted not only in the story of the service in the Oblomovs' house, but also in the comparison of Zakhar with a faithful dog: "To the master's call" Zakhar! one can hear exactly the grumbling of a chained dog ". As in Oblomov, there is both good and bad in Zakhara. Despite laziness and untidiness, Zakhar does not cause disgust, Goncharov describes him with humor. (For example: “... Zakhar could not bear the reproach written in the eyes of the master and lowered his gaze to his feet: here again, in the carpet, soaked with dust and stains, he read the sad certificate of his zeal”) The writer, as it were, makes fun of Zakhar, watching him, his life. And the fate of the hero is tragic. Zakhar, like his master, is afraid of change. He believes that what he has is the best. He felt impractical and wretched when he married Anisya, but this did not make him feel any better. He did not change his lifestyle, even when Stoltz suggested that he change his vagrant lifestyle. Zakhar is a typical Oblomovite. Before us is another sad result of the corrupting influence of the nobility and serfdom on a person.

Comparison of Savelich's servant from The Captain's Daughter

with servant Zakhar from Oblomov

If we compare the servant Savelich from The Captain's Daughter with the servant Zakhar from Oblomov, then both of them are representatives of serf household people, devoted to their masters to the point of selflessness, household servants who fill our ideal of a servant, inscribed back in Priest Sylvester's Domostroy. But there is a big difference between them, which can be explained very simply: after all, Savelich is seventy to eighty years older than Zakhar. Savelich, indeed, was a member of the family, the gentlemen respected his high honesty and devotion. He treated Pyotr Andreevich Grinev more like a mentor with his young pet, not forgetting at the same time that he was his future serf. But this consciousness manifests itself not in the form of a purely slavish, fearful attitude towards him, but in the fact that he considers his barchuk above all other masters. To Andrey Petrovich's unfair letter, he answers his own, expressing complete obedience to his will, ready to be a swineherd; this expresses the age-old dependence of the Russian peasant on the landowner, the age-old humility of the serf, Savelich does not do this out of fear, he is not afraid of either death or deprivation (it is enough to remember his words: “but for example and fear for the sake of ordered to hang at least me, the old man! ”), but prompted by his inner conviction that he is a servant of the Grinev family. Therefore, when young Grinev strictly demands obedience from him, he obeys, although he grumbles, regrets the involuntary waste of property. His worries in that regard sometimes reach the ridiculous, mixed with the tragic. Forgetting about his safety, he presents Pugachev with an account for the items spoiled and taken by him and his gang; He talks for a long time about losing a hundred rubles and giving Pugachev a hare coat. But he takes care not only of property: he spends 5 days continuously over the head of the wounded Pyotr Andreevich, does not write to his parents about his duel, not wanting to disturb them in vain. We have already had occasion to speak of his self-sacrifice. In addition, Savelich is perfectly honest, he will not hide a penny from his master's property for himself; he does not lie, does not talk in vain, keeps himself simple and sedate, showing, however, youthful liveliness when it comes to the benefit of the masters. In general, it is difficult to find unattractive features in his character.

Zakhar, in the words of Goncharov, is also a lackey knight, but a knight already with fear and reproach. He is also devoted to the Oblomov family, considers them real bars, often does not even allow comparison between them and other landowners. He is ready to die for Ilya Ilyich, but he does not like work, he cannot even stand it at all, and therefore he would not be able to take care of the sick the way Savelyich does. He once and for all marked out a circle of duties for himself and would never do more, except after repeated orders. Because of this, he has constant altercations with Oblomov. Having got used to Ilya Ilyich, whom he courted when he was a child, and knowing that he would not punish him otherwise than with a "pathetic word," Zakhar allows himself to be rude towards the master; this rudeness is a consequence of his rather complex character, which is full of contradictions: Zakhar does not give, for example, a frock coat to Tarantiev, despite Oblomov’s order, and at the same time does not hesitate to steal change from his master, which Savelich would never have done; in order to hide his tricks, get rid of work, brag, Zakhar constantly resorts to lies, differing here from the frank, truthful Savelich. He does not save the master's property, constantly breaks the dishes and spoils things, goes on a spree with friends in a tavern, "runs to a godfather of a suspicious nature", while Savelyich not only does not allow himself to have a spree, but also keeps his master from revelry. Zakhar is extremely stubborn and will never change his habits; if, suppose, he usually sweeps a room only in the middle, without looking into the corners, then there is no way to make him do this; only one remedy remains; repeat the order every time, but even after a hundredfold repetition, Zakhar will not get used to a new kind of duties.

Aversion to work in connection with the need to do at least something gave rise to sullenness and grouchiness in Zakhar; he does not even speak, as people usually do, but somehow wheezes and wheezes. But behind this rough, dirty, unattractive appearance, Zakhar hides a kind heart. For example, he is able to play for hours with the guys who mercilessly pinch his thick sideburns. In general, Zakhar is a mixture of serf patriarchy with the most rude, outward manifestations of urban culture. After comparing him with Savelich, the whole, sympathetic character of the latter is outlined even more clearly, his typical features stand out even more sharply, as a real Russian serf servant - a household member in the spirit of Domostroy. In the type of Zakhar, the unattractive features of the later liberated, often dissolute courtyards, who served the masters already on the basis of hiring, are already strongly noticeable. Having received a will, partly not being prepared for it, they used it to develop their bad qualities, until the softening and ennobling influence of a new era, already free from the bonds of serfdom, penetrated into their midst.

Popular in category: