Essays on literature: The role of minor characters in one of the works of Russian literature of the 19th century. Just as in a painting, the background and minor details highlight and enhance the main idea of ​​the picture, so in the comedy “Woe from Wit,” each of the characters in the play performs its own artistic function. Episodic characters highlight and complement the features of the main characters. Although they do not act directly, they indicate that Chatsky is opposed by a reactionary force. It is characteristic that Famusov’s ball brought together not just people, but those who make up the elite of noble Moscow. They have many faces, but almost all have common features: ignorance, veneration for rank, self-interest. They appear one after another, like a series of moving caricatures, creating an ugly portrait of this most elite of nobility. Here is the Gorich couple walking - a typical Moscow married couple.

Chatsky knew Platon Mikhailovich before his marriage. He was a troubled, witty man, but after his marriage to Natalya Dmitrievna he turned into a pathetic henpecked man. His wife won’t even let him open his mouth. “Listen once, dear, fasten your buttons,” - this is how her “conversations” with her husband sound.

The scary thing is that Gorich is aware of his situation, but does not try to change it. All he can do is say bitterly to Chatsky: “Now, brother, I’m not the same.” Another interesting, almost silent character is the footman Petrushka. He silently carries out Famusov’s orders, but opens up in an unexpected way when Lizanka says about him: “How can you not fall in love with the bartender Petrusha?” There is hidden irony of the author in this phrase.

But the Tugoukhovsky family arrived at the ball. The princess is preoccupied with finding grooms for her daughters. And from the very first remarks he looks at Chatsky as a potential victim. But as soon as she finds out that Chatsky is not rich and not in high ranks, she shouts: “Prince, prince! Go back.”

It seems like a passing scene, a minor character. But through this princess, the author reveals Famusov’s character more deeply, emphasizing in him such traits as self-interest and veneration for rank. And this is typical for the entire Famus circle, where “whoever is poor is not a match for you”: Be poor, but if you have two thousand family souls, you will be the groom. Countess Khryumina appears - a granddaughter embittered with the whole world with her half-deaf grandmother. This failed "bride" admires everything foreign, unlike others, she often uses French. How can one not compare this fidgety loser lady with modern dropouts who flaunt scraps of English and worship Western merchant culture. But the most active “episode” of the comedy is Zagoretsky. The one about whom they openly say that he is “a liar, a gambler, a swindler, a rogue.” And yet the doors of Famus’s “meeting” are open for him, he is useful in his helpfulness.

When the old woman Khlestova wanted to refuse him the house, he served her by giving her a little arap. And Molchalin’s words: “My father bequeathed to me: firstly, to please all people without exception...” - are emphasized by his relationship with Zagoretsky. At the ball there are many other representatives of Famus society, to whom Griboyedov did not even give full names. Such, for example, are Messrs. N and D, who actively participate in gossip about Chatsky’s madness. And all of them reinforce the author’s main thoughts, the ideological and satirical essence of his work.

Gogol condemns in the comedy not only the bureaucracy, but also the unserving nobility, represented by the city gossips and slackers Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky, the merchants, oppressed by the mayor, but also infected with dishonesty and greed; the police, which is rampant, offending both the right and the wrong. The monstrous arbitrariness of civil servants is directed against the most disenfranchised sections of the Russian population. In Gogol's comedy, these are such episodic characters as the mechanic Poshlepkina, whose husband was illegally given up as a soldier, the sick who are not treated but fed sauerkraut so that they would die sooner, a non-commissioned officer who was innocently flogged, prisoners who do not receive food, garrison army without underwear. These images help to understand the extent of lawlessness, injustice, theft, and negligence that permeate the entire system of Russian state power.

Theme and idea

The theme that will be expressed in the title of Ostrovsky’s play “Simplicity is enough for every wise man” also characterizes the comedy “The Inspector General”; the fundamental inefficiency of bureaucratic and social institutions is revealed, their initial criminality is cumbersome and outwardly unshakable, they are destroyed from the inside by fear, and it is enough for a hint of possible punishment to appear - the philistine psychology and insignificance of morals hidden behind the ceremonial facade of power are immediately revealed. The main idea of ​​"The Inspector General" is the idea of ​​inevitable spiritual retribution, which every person should expect. Gogol, dissatisfied with the way “The Inspector General” was staged and how the audience perceived it, tried to reveal this idea in “The Inspector General’s Denouement.” “Take a close look at this city, which is depicted in the play!” says Gogol through the lips of the First Comic Actor. “Everyone agrees that there is no such city in all of Russia... Well, what if this is our soulful city and does he sit with each of us?.. Whatever you say, the inspector who is waiting for us at the door of the coffin is terrible. As if you don’t know who this inspector is? Why pretend? This inspector is our awakened conscience, which will force us to suddenly and at once look with all eyes on ourselves. Nothing will be hidden from this inspector, because he was sent by the Named Supreme Command and will be announced about it when it is no longer possible to take a step back. Suddenly, such a monster will be revealed to you, within you, that hair will rise from horror. It is better to revise everything that is in us at the beginning of life, and not at the end of it."

We are talking here about the Last Judgment. And now the final scene of “The Inspector General” becomes clear. It is a symbolic picture of the Last Judgment. The appearance of the gendarme, announcing the arrival from St. Petersburg “by personal order” of the current inspector, has a stunning effect on the heroes of the play. Gogol's remark: "The spoken words strike everyone like thunder. The sound of amazement unanimously flies out of the ladies' lips; the whole group, having suddenly changed their position, remains petrified." Gogol attached exceptional importance to this “silent scene”. He defines its duration as one and a half minutes, and in “Excerpt from a Letter...” he even talks about two or three minutes of “petrification” of the heroes. Each of the characters, with their whole figure, seems to show that he can no longer change anything in his fate, even lift a finger - he is before the Judge. According to Gogol’s plan, at this moment there should be silence in the hall of general reflection. In “Dénouement,” Gogol did not offer a new interpretation of “The Inspector General,” as is sometimes thought, but only revealed its main idea. On November 2 (NS) 1846, he wrote to Ivan Sosnitsky from Nice: “Pay your attention to the last scene of The Inspector General. Think about it, think about it again. From the final play, The Inspector General’s Denouement, you will understand why I am so concerned about this last stage and why it is so important for me that it has its full effect. I am sure that you will look at The Inspector General with different eyes after this conclusion, which, for many reasons, could not be given to me then and is only now possible." From these words it follows that "Dénouement" did not give new meaning to the "silent scene", but only clarified its meaning. Indeed, at the time of the creation of “The Inspector General” in “Petersburg Notes of 1836” Gogol’s lines appear that directly precede “The Denouement”: “Lent is calm and formidable. It seems that a voice is heard: “Stop, Christian; Look back at your life." However, Gogol's interpretation of the district city as a "spiritual city", and its officials as the embodiment of the passions rampant in it, made in the spirit of the patristic tradition, came as a surprise to his contemporaries and caused rejection. Shchepkin, who was destined for the role of the First Comic Actor , having read the new play, refused to play in it. On May 22, 1847, he wrote to Gogol: “... until now I have studied all the heroes of The Inspector General as living people... Do not give me any hints that these are not officials , and our passions; no, I don’t want such a remake: these are people, real living people, among whom I grew up and almost grew old. .. You from the whole world have gathered several people into one gathering place, into one group, with these people at the age of ten I became completely akin, and you want to take them away from me." Meanwhile, Gogol’s intention did not at all imply making “ living people" - full-blooded artistic images - a kind of allegory. The author only revealed the main idea of ​​​​the comedy, without which it looks like a simple denunciation of morals. "The Inspector General" - "The Inspector General," - Gogol answered Shchepkin around July 10 (New Style) 1847 , - and application to oneself is an indispensable thing that every viewer must do from everything, even not from “The Inspector General,” but which it is more appropriate for him to do about “The Inspector General.” In the second edition of the ending of “Dénouement,” Gogol explains his thought. Here The first comic actor (Michal Mihalcz), in response to one of the characters’ doubts that his proposed interpretation of the play corresponds to the author’s intention, says: “The author, even if he had this thought, would have acted badly if he had revealed it clearly. The comedy would then turn into an allegory, and some pale moralizing sermon could emerge from it. No, his job was to depict simply the horror of material unrest, not in an ideal city, but in the one on earth... His job was to depict this darkness so strongly that everyone felt that they needed to fight with it, so that it would make the viewer tremble - and the horror of the riots would have penetrated him completely. That's what he should have done. And this is our job to give a moral lesson. We, thank God, are not children. I thought about what kind of moral teaching I could derive for myself, and attacked the one that I have now told you." And then, to the questions of those around him, why was he the only one who derived a moral teaching that was so remote in their terms, Michal Mihalch replies: "Firstly , why do you know that I was the only one who came up with this moral lesson? And secondly, why do you consider it distant? I think, on the contrary, our own soul is closest to us. I had my soul in my mind then, I was thinking about myself, and that’s why I came up with this moral teaching. If others had had this in mind before themselves, they would probably have drawn the same moral teaching that I have drawn. But does each of us approach a writer’s work, like a bee to a flower, in order to extract from it what we need? No, we are looking for moral teaching in everything for others, and not for ourselves. We are ready to advocate and protect the entire society, carefully valuing the morality of others and forgetting about our own. After all, we love to laugh at others, and not at ourselves..." It is impossible not to notice that these reflections of the main character of "The Denouement" not only do not contradict the content of "The Inspector General", but correspond exactly to it. Moreover, the thoughts expressed here are organic to Gogol’s entire work.

A. S. Griboyedov in the comedy “Woe from Wit” painted a broad and holistic picture of the secular Moscow of his time, ridiculing the wretchedness and limitations of the high society that inhabited it. And in this he was helped by minor characters, who allowed the author to convey the special atmosphere of the Famusovs’ house.

So, the first minor character to appear in the play is the maid Lisa. A simple girl, but full of cunning and insight, she was one of the few sane people in Famusov’s house. Let us remember, at least, her words addressed to the owner:

Pass us away more than all sorrows

And lordly anger and lordly love...

In these two lines, the maid vividly and truthfully described the true attitude of the nobles towards their servants.

And how exactly she noticed the key features of the main character of Chatsky’s comedy:

Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp,

Like Alexander Andreich Chatsky.

In my opinion, Lisa’s critical remarks are the author’s vision of her characters.

The rest of the minor characters are representatives of Famus society. They are very similar in their ignorance, veneration and greed.

The first member of secular society in the work is the rude, arrogant Colonel Skalozub, who, according to the maid Liza, “both has a golden bag and aspires to be a general.” Sergei Sergeevich is indecently limited and stupid. “He has never spoken a smart word,” is how Sophia characterizes him. And indeed, the hero, like many other members of Famus’s society, denies the importance and noble goal of enlightenment: “And books will be preserved like this: for great occasions...” He denies because he prays to other gods: ranks and money. The colonel's frank and cynical story about the reasons for his success testifies to his greed:

I am quite happy in my comrades,

The vacancies are just open

Then the elders will include others,

The others, you see, have been killed.

The remaining representatives of Famus society are depicted in less detail, but just as vividly as Skalozub. For example, the angry old maid Anfisa Nilovna Khlestova, as befits a society lady, followed fashion. It was fashionable at that time to have dark-skinned Arab servants, and the old woman also had such a servant:

Out of boredom I took it with me

A little black girl and a dog...

Here it is, cruel inhumanity, when a blackamoor is equated with a dog!

Amazingly, in Famus society people like Anton Antonovich Zagoretsky are accepted as welcome guests. He, “an out-and-out swindler, a rogue,” with a dubious reputation, thanks to his ability to please any person, is a dear guest in all noble houses. Khlestova herself calls him a gambler and a thief, but nevertheless she is kind to him because he “got two small blacks at the fair” for her and her sister.

The role of minor characters in I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons” is multifaceted. The system of characters is built by the author in such a way that the relationships of the characters with Bazarov reveal the character of each of them and at the same time make it possible to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the protagonist’s worldview, understand his character, the reasons for his loneliness, and highlight certain traits of his personality. In addition, when describing the minor characters, the likes and dislikes of Turgenev himself, his ideological position, his tastes and ideals are clearly revealed. Finally, the images of Turgenev’s minor heroes - the Kirsanov brothers, Arkady, Odintsova, Fenechka, Bazarov’s parents - represent independent artistic value and, taken together, paint a picture of the author’s contemporary era.
Pavel Kirsanov appears as Bazarov’s main ideological opponent in the story. In disputes with him, such traits of the protagonist as intelligence and will, internal independence, hatred of lordship and slavery are revealed, but, on the other hand, his negative qualities are also revealed: rudeness, inability to listen to the opinions of others, a tendency to categorical judgments. Pavel Petrovich talks about the need to respect authorities - for Bazarov, authorities do not exist. Both of them are categorical in their assessments, confident in their rightness and incapable of a reasonable compromise. Both end up left alone, leaving behind neither offspring nor the results of their labor.
Bazarov's nihilistic theory is truly refuted in the novel by the quiet and modest Nikolai Kirsanov. Nikolai Petrovich, with his tact, intelligence, openness to everything beautiful, is opposed to Bazarov, who is hostile towards the whole world, including poetry, love, philosophy, and the beauty of nature. Nikolai Kirsanov does not participate in the ideological duel between his brother and Bazarov - on the contrary, he tries to soften the severity of the conflict between them. Soft and warm-hearted, this Turgenev hero evokes sympathy both among the reader and the author of the novel. If Bazarov dies alone, without having time to realize his extraordinary abilities, without leaving an heir, then Nikolai Petrovich is given the opportunity to experience the warmth of family life, to create a connection between generations, to be a true keeper of the spiritual and aesthetic experience of the past. No matter how hard the “nihilists” try to shake the foundations of life, no matter how much they deny eternal values ​​in it, people like Nikolai Petrovich will preserve the healthy foundations of human existence and instill in their children simple and wise concepts of life.
Arkady initially falls under the influence of his friend’s extraordinary and strong personality. Trying to be like his mentor in everything, he behaves with excessive swagger, tries to look mature and independent: he drinks a lot of wine, unnecessarily drawls out his speech, and avoids the word “panasha.” The author notices numerous details showing that Arkady's beliefs are random, superficial and contradict his mental makeup and upbringing. Bazarov is a man of action, who has gone through the school of labor and hardship and despises laziness and lordship. Arkady - “sissy”, “barich”. “...We say goodbye forever... you were not created for our bitter, tart, boggy life,” Bazarov will say to Kirsanov Jr. in one of the last chapters of the novel.
Love for Odintsova becomes the main test of the strength of Bazarov's nihilistic views. Odintsova is an aristocrat. She, like Pavel Kirsanov, has a developed sense of self-respect, and therefore she adheres to the routine that she “started in her home and in her life.” Protecting and appreciating this routine, Anna does not dare to surrender to the feeling that Evgeniy initially awakened in her. This love becomes the beginning of retribution for the arrogant Bazarov: it splits the hero’s soul into two halves. From now on, two people live and act in it: one is a convinced opponent of “romantic”, sublime feelings, the other is a passionately and spiritually loving person, faced with the true mystery of deep feeling.
The story ends not with the scene of Bazarov’s death (the most powerful in artistic terms), but with a kind of EPILOGUE, in which the writer talks about the further fate of the heroes. Saying goodbye to them, the author once again expresses his attitude towards them, and in the last lines of the novel a majestic hymn to nature sounds as a symbol of the “eternal principles of human life.” The epilogue reveals the author's position in relation to the main character and other characters in the novel. Turgenev contrasts the tragic figure of the “nihilist” not with any heroes, but with “human life, in its broadest meaning,” “nature in all its beauty.”

The role of minor and off-stage characters in the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"

Minor and off-stage characters, of which there are not so many in the play, play a very significant role in revealing the ideological content of the comedy. These characters are often connected with the main ones, and with their help we learn some important details: they reveal the essence of a particular scene, the meaning of events both happening on stage and behind the scenes, clarify the characters’ characters, and show their relationships. With the help of these minor and off-stage characters, Griboyedov creates in the comedy a special atmosphere of the rich house of the Moscow gentleman Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov at the beginning of the last century.

One memorable character is the maid in Famusov’s house, Lisa. At first glance, she is a simple and lively girl. But after we hear her remarks and remarks, we can say that she is described by Griboedov as a very real serf girl, full of cunning and insight. Her words addressed to Famusov amaze us and remain in our memory for the rest of our lives:

Pass us away more than all sorrows

And lordly anger and lordly love...

In comedy, she is an expression of common sense, a critic of almost all the characters in the play. She argues intelligently; it is Lisa who seems to introduce us to the main character Chatsky:

Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp,

Like Alexander Andreich Chatsky.

Griboyedov, describing Lisa, put into her mouth some of his thoughts and feelings in relation to the characters and events of the play.

For a more complete picture of Famus society, the author introduces Sergei Sergeevich Skalozub into the play. According to Lisa’s clear definition, he is “both a gold bag and aims to be a general.” And according to Sophia, “he hasn’t uttered a smart word in his life.”

The Famus society does not see anything bright in education; they believe that books are driving them crazy. Skalozub speaks of enlightenment with his characteristic dullness and limitations:

And the books will be saved like this: for big occasions...

Chatsky, figuring out why Sophia greeted him so coldly, tries to have a frank and sincere conversation with Skalozub, but immediately understands that the future general is frankly stupid. After all, the words he uttered after Chatsky’s monologue “Who are the judges?” indicate that the skalozub did not understand anything from his denunciations. And Chatsky calms down when he hears how, with the frankness characteristic of Skalozub, he speaks directly about the reasons for his success:

I am quite happy in my comrades,

The vacancies are just open

Then the elders will turn off others,

The others, you see, have been killed.

These cynical words, testifying to an uncontrollable desire for wealth and a career, characterize not only Skalozub, but also the entire society gathered at the ball in Famusov’s house.

Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky with their six daughters also add their own characteristic feature to our idea of ​​Famus society. Their presence at the ball is explained by only one single goal - to find a worthy and rich match for their daughters.

Famusov's ball is a “living” museum of wax figures representing the high society of the Moscow noble nobility. There are many anecdotal figures here, such as, for example, Zagoretsky - a famous adventurer, rogue and ladies' man. Imagining this person, you can appreciate the entire Famus society, where there is nothing but pompous hypocrisy, selfish stupidity, “noble” rudeness and lack of spirituality.

Teaming up against Chatsky are Maxim Petrovich, the lady-in-waiting of Catherine the First, who ridiculed him, Princess Pulcheria Andreevna, “Nestor of the noble scoundrels” and many others from secular society. With their help, Griboedov creates an idea of ​​this force, against which Chatsky unsuccessfully tries to oppose alone. These characters perform two main meaningful functions: they serve as an object of Chatsky’s ridicule, helping us clearly see the flaws of secular society, and secondly, they constitute and unite a camp hostile to the main character. Among them are three figures that are similar in their functions to the other characters, but are the most important for revealing the essence of the main conflict of the play. These are those who are held up as examples in Famus society: Kuzma Kuzmich, Maxim Petrovich and Foma Fomich. For Chatsky, the story of Maxim Petrovich’s promotion to the service is funny, and Foma Fomich’s verbal works are an example of absolute stupidity. And for Famusov and others like him, it is these people who serve as models of professional well-being.

Our understanding of these nobles and their attitude towards their serf servants is complemented, for example, by the old woman Khlestova, who asks to feed her “arapka-girl” along with the dog. Such ladies with obvious serf-like habits, like anyone from Famusov’s society, have no problem humiliating the dignity of a servant or threatening to exile their serfs for unknown reasons. All of them, defending serfdom, consider the main dignity of a person to be his wealth, unlimited power over his own kind, and unlimited cruelty in treating his servants.

Griboedov shows us that in Famusov’s society, if a person wants to have completely different interests, to live in his own way, and not in Famusov’s way, then he is already “out of his mind”, “robber”, “carbonari”, for example, the princess says with condemnation about his nephew:

Chinov doesn’t want to know! He's a chemist, he's a botanist.

Prince Fedor, my nephew.

Griboyedov in Prince Fyodor is trying to show us another pure mind, similar to Chatsky’s, to show that the main character is not the only future Decembrist in Famusov’s society, who can go out onto Senate Square on December 14, 1825.

From Chatsky's monologue we learn about a Frenchman from Bordeaux, about whom everyone speaks enthusiastically, who feels like a little king here, because Famus society bows to France and all Frenchmen, forgetting national pride and dignity. And this “Frenchman”, when he arrived in Moscow, seemed to be at home:

Not a Russian sound, not a Russian face...

One of the minor characters is Platon Mikhailovich Gorich, a former friend and like-minded person of Chatsky. Platon Mikhailovich appears in Griboedov's work in just one scene of his meeting with Chatsky at Famusov's ball. Famusov's society made him an exemplary husband to his wife Natalya Dmitrievna, who takes care of him like a child. Such a life forced him to abandon his youthful hobbies. Chatsky asks him mockingly:

Have you forgotten the noise of the camp, comrades and brothers?

Calm and lazy?

To which Gorich replies:

No, there is still something to do

I play a duet on the flute

A - prayerful...

In my opinion, a character like Repetilov, who can be considered Chatsky’s double in comedy, is very important in comedy. Only he, unlike Chatsky, simply plays at free-thinking, and his reasoning is empty phrase-mongering. It is no coincidence that his remark: “We’re making noise, brother, we’re making noise!” has become winged and denotes idle talk, the appearance of action. In the scene when Repetilov tells Chatsky about Baron von Klotz, who “aims to be a minister,” and he “aims to be his son-in-law,” his desire for cheap careerism, his undoubted duplicity, is revealed. And this baron with his “friends” helps us see the true face of Chatsky’s imaginary friend.

In a conversation with Chatsky, Molchalin mentions with admiration a certain Tatyana Yuryevna:

Tatyana Yuryevna said something,

Returning from St. Petersburg...

And we understand that she is a gossip, like, in general, almost all ladies of high society. There is nothing more interesting for them than to gossip; they find nothing interesting either in books or in art.

G.N and G.D - these mysterious characters appear in the comedy in order to spread rumors about Chatsky’s madness. At first Sophia talks about this jokingly, but after a while it becomes public opinion. Famus society cannot forgive Chatsky for his intelligence and education, so they gladly believe this slander.

At the end of the play, Famusov exclaims:

Oh! My God! What will he say?

Princess Marya Alekseevna!

And you can immediately understand that the opinion of this unknown to us Maria Alekseevna is more important for Famusov than the happiness of his own daughter.

Thanks to minor and off-stage characters, the comedy “Woe from Wit” is not closed in time and space where the action takes place. We begin to understand what moral values ​​are in the world that outrages Chatsky. The contradictions between the hero and society become natural. With the help of these characters, Griboyedov introduces us to the past and future of different people, and first of all, we learn the backstory of the life of the main character. We understand that Chatsky’s future is most likely with the Decembrists, because he expressed a lot in the comedy that could be heard from the Decembrists.