The meaning of the image of an overcoat in Gogol's story of the same name. Gogol’s story “The Overcoat” and its significance for Russian literature What does the overcoat symbolize in the work of the same name

The meaning of the mystical ending of the story by N.V. Gogol's "The Overcoat" is that justice, which Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin could not find during his lifetime, nevertheless triumphed after the death of the hero. The ghost of Bashmachkin tears off the greatcoats of noble and rich people. But a special place in the finale is occupied by a meeting with “one significant person” who, after the service, decided to “stop by a lady he knew, Karolina Ivanovna.” But on the way, a strange incident happens to him. Suddenly, the official felt that someone grabbed him tightly by the collar; that someone turned out to be the late Akaki Akakievich. He says in a terrible voice: “Finally, I caught you by the collar! It’s your overcoat that I need!”

Gogol believes that in the life of every person, even the most insignificant, there are moments when he becomes a person in the highest sense of the word. Taking overcoats from officials, Bashmachkin becomes a real hero in his own eyes and in the eyes of the “humiliated and insulted.” Only now Akaki Akakievich is able to stand up for himself.

Gogol resorts to fantasy in the last episode of his “The Overcoat” to show the injustice of the world, its inhumanity. And only the intervention of an otherworldly force can change this state of affairs.

It should be noted that the last meeting between Akaki Akakievich and the official became significant for the “significant” person. Gogol writes that this incident “made a strong impression on him.” The official began to say much less often to his subordinates, “How dare you, do you understand who is in front of you?” If he uttered such words, it would be after he listened to the person standing in front of him.

Gogol in his story shows all the inhumanity of human society. He calls to look at the “little man” with understanding and pity. The conflict between the “little man” and society leads to an uprising of the resigned and humble, even after death.

Thus, in “The Overcoat” Gogol turns to a new type of hero for him - the “little man”. The author strives to show all the hardships of the life of an ordinary person who cannot find support anywhere or in anyone. He cannot even respond to the offenders because he is too weak. In the real world, everything cannot change and justice cannot prevail, so Gogol introduces fantasy into the story.

The meaning of the image of an overcoat in the story of the same name by N.V. Gogol

In “The Overcoat,” the social and moral motive of Gogol’s other, earlier stories unfolded. It lies in the thought of the riches of the human spirit, not destroyed, but only deeply hidden in the very depths of the existence of people, distorted by bad society. Gogol was guided by the idea that these values ​​of the spirit, clogged with vulgarity, can, and therefore should, resurrect and flourish, albeit in some uncertain circumstances. This theme was expressed especially acutely in The Overcoat.

The main story of N.V. Gogol is the figure of the humiliated Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin, deprived of the joys of life. In revealing the character of this hero, the image of an overcoat performs an important function. An overcoat is not just an object. This is a goal for which Bashmachkin is ready to self-restraint, to cut funds, which are already very limited. And receiving a new overcoat from Petrovich is a holiday for him, “a most solemn day.”

The purchase of an overcoat is preceded by a description of the life of Akaki Akakievich. It shows the tragedy of a “little man” in a big city. The story depicts his struggle for existence, deprivation, and the inability to satisfy the needs of life, which include the acquisition of a new overcoat. Bashmachkin's routine work in the department cannot provide the smallest and most necessary. Therefore, the overcoat represents for this hero what he strives for. But, in addition, it shows how little this person needs.

Gogol depicts in his story how the most modest, most insignificant smile of fate leads to the fact that humanity begins to stir and awaken in the half-dead Akaki Akakievich. He doesn’t have an overcoat yet, but only has a dream about it. But something has already changed in Bashmachkin, because there is some event ahead of him. Moreover, this is an event that brings joy. For once, something happens for him, whereas for years this hero existed not for himself, but for the meaningless labor that consumed his existence. For the sake of his overcoat, Bashmachkin makes sacrifices. It is not so difficult for Akaki Akakievich to carry them, because he “nourished spiritually, carrying in his thoughts the eternal idea of ​​the future overcoat.” It is very interesting that this hero has an idea, and an eternal one at that! Gogol notes: “From now on, it’s as if he got married...”. And then the author describes Bashmachkin’s state: “He somehow became more lively, even firmer in character... Doubt and indecision disappeared from his face and from his actions by itself... Fire sometimes appeared in his eyes, the most daring and courageous thoughts even flashed in his head: Should I really put a marten on my collar?

The courage of the renewing Akaki Akakievich’s thoughts does not go further than a marten on his collar; but it doesn't make me laugh. The marten is beyond the means of Akaki Akakievich; dreaming about it means dreaming about something characteristic of “significant persons” with whom it had never previously occurred to Akaky Akakievich to compare himself. But something completely different attracts attention. Just dreams of an unfortunate overcoat with a calico lining changed Akaki Akakievich so dramatically. What would happen to him and to all the downtrodden, humiliated and devastated if they were given an existence worthy of a person, given a goal, a scope, a dream?

Finally, the overcoat is ready, and Akaki Akakievich took another step forward along the path of resurrecting the man in it. Let “I didn’t buy a marten, because it was definitely too expensive, but instead they chose the best cat they could find in the store.” Still, the event happened. And in Akaky Akakievich we again see something new: he “even laughed”, comparing the old hood with the new overcoat, “he had lunch cheerfully and after dinner he didn’t write anything, no papers, but just sat on the bed for a little while.” Emotions, fun, sybaritism, and life without writing papers - Akaki Akakievich had never had all this before. Even some playful ideas stirred in the soul of this hero: on the way to visit, he saw a playful picture in the window of a store, “shook his head and grinned.” And on the way back, after drinking champagne at a party, Akakiy Akakievich “suddenly even ran up, no one knows why, after some lady who passed by like lightning and every part of her body was filled with extraordinary movement.”

Of course, Akaki Akakievich remains Akaki Akakievich despite all this, and the flashes of something new die out in him. But they exist, and it is they who will lead to the denouement of the story. We see the turning point when Akaki Akakievich was robbed, humiliated, and destroyed. Moreover, he is on the edge of the grave, delirious. And here it turns out that there were truly unexpected things hidden in this hero. He knows who his killer is, and little remains of his timid submission. Death frees a person in Bashmachkina.

Akaki Akakievich, who had experienced fear all his life and died most of all from the fear instilled in him by a significant person, now, after his death, he himself began to instill fear in others. He scares a lot of people, including those who wear beaver, raccoon and bear coats, that is, significant people. All the indignation of this hero against the life he lived manifested itself after his death. And the key here is the image of the overcoat, the acquisition of which made it possible to see the human element in Bashmachkin. The overcoat was the reason for the whole protest of the little man against the existing order of life to manifest itself. We can say that the story contains life before and after the purchase of the overcoat. In the story, the overcoat is of great importance. It personifies, on the one hand, a materially necessary object and, on the other, an object that allows one to be revived to life by a person killed by reality.

He carried out his duties zealously and was very fond of manual copying of papers, but in general his role in the department was extremely insignificant, which is why young officials often made fun of him. His salary was 400 rubles a year.

When the bonus for the holiday turned out to be more than expected, the titular adviser, together with the tailor, went to buy material for a new overcoat.

And then one frosty morning Akaki Akakievich entered the department in a new overcoat. Everyone began to praise and congratulate him, and in the evening he was invited to a name day with the assistant chief. Akaki Akakievich was in excellent spirits. Closer to midnight, he was returning home, when suddenly he came to him with the words “But the overcoat is mine!” “some people with mustaches” came up and took the overcoat off their shoulders.

The owner of the apartment advised Akakiy Akakievich to contact a private bailiff. The next day, Akakiy Akakievich went to the private bailiff, but to no avail. He came to the department in an old overcoat. Many felt sorry for him, and officials advised him to seek help from a “significant person” because this person had recently been insignificant. “A significant person” shouted at Akakiy Akakievich, so much so that he “went out into the street, not remembering anything.”

In St. Petersburg at that time it was windy and frosty, and the overcoat was old, and, returning home, Akaki Akakievich took to bed. He was no longer able to recover and died a few days later in delirium.

Over the next year and a half, spent in Vienna and Rome, Gogol took up the story three more times, but was able to complete it only in the spring of 1841, and then under pressure from Pogodin. At the same time, he was working on a text about Italy, completely different in style and mood. In the second edition, the main character received the name “Akaky Akakievich Tishkevich,” which was soon changed to “Bashmakevich.” In the third edition, the comic intonation began to give way to a sentimental and pathetic one.

Since the white manuscript of the story has not survived, it is difficult for literary scholars to determine whether the story underwent some kind of censorship processing in anticipation of publication. According to N. Ya. Prokopovich, censor A. V. Nikitenko “although he did not touch upon anything significant, he crossed out some very interesting passages.”

Reaction

After the release of the 3rd volume of collected works, the story did not generate extensive critical reviews and was no longer republished during Gogol’s lifetime. The work was perceived among other comic and sentimental stories about distressed officials, of which quite a lot appeared in the late 1830s. Nevertheless, the image of the downtrodden little man rebelling against the system had an undoubted influence on the natural school of the forties. In 1847 Apollo Grigoriev wrote:

The humanization of the seemingly petty concerns of poor officials was developed in Dostoevsky’s first works, such as “Poor People” (1845) and “The Double” (1846). The phrase often attributed to Dostoevsky, “We all came out of Gogol’s overcoat” (about Russian realist writers), is actually due to Eugene Melchior de Vogüe and dates back to an 1885 article in Revue des Deux Mondes .

Analysis

B. M. Eikhenbaum’s article “How Gogol’s “Overcoat” was Made” (1918) had a great influence on the formation of the school of formalism and narratology in general. The researcher saw the novelty of the story in the fact that “the narrator somehow puts himself in the foreground, as if only using the plot to interweave individual stylistic devices.”

This storytelling style allows us to trace the change in the narrator’s attitude towards Akaki Akakievich as the story progresses. As D. Mirsky notes, “Akaky Akakievich is depicted as a pitiful person, humble and inferior, and the story goes through the whole gamut of attitudes towards him - from simple ridicule to piercing pity.”

The story criticizes the social system based on the triumph of the table of ranks, where the class of an official largely determines the attitude of others towards him than his personal qualities. The author's skeptical attitude towards social hierarchy even extends to family relationships, which some biographers associate with the author's alleged homosexuality.

In Soviet times, “The Overcoat” was usually classified as literature of critical realism, without paying attention to the fantastic grotesque ending. Even Eikhenbaum stated in 1918 that middling critics “stop at a loss before this unexpected and incomprehensible introduction romanticism V realism» .

The following way out of this contradiction was found - “The Overcoat” began to be interpreted as a parody of a romantic story, where “the place of the transcendental desire for a high artistic goal was occupied by eternal idea for a future overcoat on thick cotton wool":

The transcendental desire was reduced to an elementary need, but a vital need, not excessive, urgently necessary, integral in the poor, homeless life of Akaki Akakievich and, moreover, suffering the same inevitable collapse that the dreams of an artist or composer suffered.

If in Russia, due to the enthusiasm for social analysis, the mystical component of the story eluded critics, then in the West, on the contrary, the story was considered in the context of the Hoffmannian tradition, where the dream invariably breaks into reality. Accordingly, matches were sought for one or another plot situation in “The Overcoat” in Hoffmann’s short stories.

Transformation

Spatial distortions begin when Bashmachkin enters the deserted square with fear. His overcoat is taken away from him by men of gigantic stature with mustaches characterized by “thunderous voices” and “a fist the size of an official’s head.” Having lost his overcoat shell, the main character mutates into one of these otherworldly giants: after death, his ghost becomes “much taller,” “wears an enormous mustache,” and threatens “with a fist the likes of which you will not find among the living.” Like other mysterious barbels, the newly-minted ghost makes a living by pulling off greatcoats.

Many historians say that the Battle of Borodino was not won by the French because Napoleon had a runny nose, that if he had not had a runny nose, his orders before and during the battle would have been even more ingenious, and Russia would have perished, et la face du monde eut ete changee. [and the face of the world would change.] For historians who recognize that Russia was formed by the will of one man - Peter the Great, and France from a republic developed into an empire, and French troops went to Russia by the will of one man - Napoleon, the reasoning is that Russia remained powerful because Napoleon had a big cold on the 26th, such reasoning is inevitably consistent for such historians.
If it depended on the will of Napoleon to give or not to give the Battle of Borodino and it depended on his will to make this or that order, then it is obvious that a runny nose, which had an impact on the manifestation of his will, could be the reason for the salvation of Russia and that therefore the valet who forgot to give Napoleon On the 24th, waterproof boots were the savior of Russia. On this path of thought, this conclusion is undoubted - as undoubted as the conclusion that Voltaire made jokingly (without knowing what) when he said that the Night of St. Bartholomew occurred from an upset stomach of Charles IX. But for people who do not allow that Russia was formed by the will of one person - Peter I, and that the French Empire was formed and the war with Russia began by the will of one person - Napoleon, this reasoning not only seems incorrect, unreasonable, but also contrary to the whole essence human. To the question of what constitutes the cause of historical events, another answer seems to be that the course of world events is predetermined from above, depends on the coincidence of all the arbitrariness of the people participating in these events, and that the influence of Napoleons on the course of these events is only external and fictitious.
Strange as it may seem at first glance, the assumption that the Night of St. Bartholomew, the order for which was given by Charles IX, did not occur at his will, but that it only seemed to him that he ordered it to be done, and that the Borodino massacre of eighty thousand people did not occur at the will of Napoleon (despite the fact that he gave orders about the beginning and course of the battle), and that it seemed to him only that he ordered it - no matter how strange this assumption seems, but human dignity tells me that each of us, if not more, then no less a person than the great Napoleon orders that this solution to the issue be allowed, and historical research abundantly confirms this assumption.
In the Battle of Borodino, Napoleon did not shoot at anyone and did not kill anyone. The soldiers did all this. Therefore, it was not he who killed people.
The soldiers of the French army went to kill Russian soldiers in the Battle of Borodino not as a result of Napoleon’s orders, but of their own free will. The entire army: the French, Italians, Germans, Poles - hungry, ragged and exhausted from the campaign - in view of the army blocking Moscow from them, they felt that le vin est tire et qu"il faut le boire. [the wine is uncorked and it is necessary to drink it .] If Napoleon had now forbidden them to fight the Russians, they would have killed him and gone to fight the Russians, because they needed it.
When they listened to the order of Napoleon, who presented them with the words of posterity for their injuries and death as a consolation that they too had been in the battle of Moscow, they shouted “Vive l" Empereur!” just as they shouted “Vive l"Empereur!” at the sight of an image of a boy piercing the globe with a bilboke stick; just as they would shout “Vive l"Empereur!” at any nonsense that would be told to them. They had no choice but to shout “Vive l" Empereur!” and go fight to find food and rest for the victors in Moscow. Therefore, it was not as a result of Napoleon’s orders that they killed their own kind.
And it was not Napoleon who controlled the course of the battle, because nothing was carried out from his disposition and during the battle he did not know about what was happening in front of him. Therefore, the way in which these people killed each other did not happen at the will of Napoleon, but happened independently of him, at the will of hundreds of thousands of people who participated in the common cause. It only seemed to Napoleon that the whole thing was happening according to his will. And therefore the question of whether or not Napoleon had a runny nose is of no greater interest to history than the question of the runny nose of the last Furshtat soldier.
Moreover, on August 26, Napoleon’s runny nose did not matter, since the testimony of writers that, due to Napoleon’s runny nose, his disposition and orders during the battle were not as good as before are completely unfair.
The disposition written out here was not at all worse, and even better, than all previous dispositions by which battles were won. The imaginary orders during the battle were also no worse than before, but exactly the same as always. But these dispositions and orders seem only worse than the previous ones because the Battle of Borodino was the first that Napoleon did not win. All the most beautiful and thoughtful dispositions and orders seem very bad, and every military scientist criticizes them with a significant air when the battle is not won, and the very bad dispositions and orders seem very good, and serious people prove the merits of bad orders in entire volumes, when the battle is won against them.
The disposition compiled by Weyrother at the Battle of Austerlitz was an example of perfection in works of this kind, but it was still condemned, condemned for its perfection, for too much detail.
Napoleon in the Battle of Borodino performed his job as a representative of power just as well, and even better, than in other battles. He did nothing harmful to the progress of the battle; he leaned toward more prudent opinions; he did not confuse, did not contradict himself, did not get scared and did not run away from the battlefield, but with his great tact and war experience, he calmly and with dignity fulfilled his role as an apparent commander.

Returning from a second anxious trip along the line, Napoleon said:
– The chess has been set, the game will start tomorrow.
Ordering some punch to be served and calling Bosset, he began a conversation with him about Paris, about some changes that he intended to make in the maison de l'imperatrice [in the court staff of the Empress], surprising the prefect with his memorability for all the small details of court relations.

"Overcoat"- story by Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol. Part of the “Petersburg Tales” cycle. The first publication took place in 1842.

About the story itself:

· Bashma doesn’t have his own words: he rewrites, but says... that... “Leave me, why are you offending me?” against the background of this tongue-tiedness it sounds so clear, we hear the hero’s inner voice and the author’s preaching of compassion and brotherhood. But Bashm is not devoid of this inner voice, saying “this, really, is absolutely ...”, he does not continue, because it seems to him that he “ I've already said everything" The hero is opposed to the whole world in this way: he doesn’t notice anything, everything doesn’t matter to him, he lives in these letters and his thoughts, this is a powerful incomprehensible dimension, separated from ordinary life!

· In the first edition of the story (1839), it had a different title: “The Tale of an Official Stealing an Overcoat” (3, 446). It indisputably follows from this that the innermost ideological core of the story reveals itself in its fantastic epilogue - in the posthumous rebellion of Akaki Akakievich, his revenge on the “significant person” who neglected the despair and tearful complaint of the robbed poor man. And just like in “The Tale of Kopeikin,” the transformation of a humiliated man into a formidable avenger for his humiliation is correlated in “The Overcoat” with what led to December 14, 1825. In the first edition of the epilogue, the “short stature” ghost, recognized by everyone as the deceased Akaki Akakievich, “was looking for some lost overcoat and, under the guise of his own, tore off all sorts of overcoats from everyone’s shoulders, without distinguishing rank and title,” finally taking possession of the overcoat of a “significant person” ", "became taller and even [wore] an enormous mustache, but ... soon disappeared, heading straight to the Semenovsky barracks” (3, 461). “An enormous mustache” is an attribute of a military “face”, and the Semenov barracks are an allusion to the rebellion of the Semenovsky regiment in 1820. Both lead to Captain Kopeikin and make us see in him the second version of the titular adviser Bashmachkin. In this regard, it becomes obvious that the overcoat itself is not just a household item, not just an overcoat, but a symbol of official society and rank.

· And the fact that “a poor story acquires a fantastic ending” is Gogol’s fantasy, again. The splash of this world.

· It is written in a very difficult, sophisticated way about the simplest things, for example: “But if Akaki Akakievich looked at anything, he saw his clean, even handwriting lines written on everything, and only if, from nowhere, a horse’s muzzle was placed on his shoulder and blew a whole wind into her cheek with her nostrils, only then did he notice that he was not in the middle of the line, but rather in the middle of the street.” This wind is emphasized; at the place where he was robbed, the wind generally blew from four directions. Can this be compared to the storm of Lyra? I think that's a good idea.

· As Dostoevsky said in one of his articles, Gogol was a “colossal demon” who “from an official’s missing overcoat made us a terrible tragedy.”

About her influence:

The St. Petersburg stories, especially The Overcoat, were of great importance for all subsequent Russian literature, the establishment of social humanism and the “natural” direction in it. Herzen considered the Overcoat to be a colossal work by Gogol. And Dostoevsky is credited with the famous words: We all came out of Gogol’s Overcoat.

Gogol here develops the theme of the “little man”, identified by Pushkin in “The Station Agent,” and the theme of “Overcoat” is continued and developed by Dostoevsky’s novel “Poor People” (1846). In general, the “little man” is a very important type for Dostoevsky, and for Chekhov, and for all Russian literature.

Again, a comparison about influence:

· The description of St. Petersburg in “The Overcoat” is very similar to the description of St. Petersburg by Dostoevsky: o small people disappear into a crowded crowd o in parallel there are streets where it is as light at night as during the day, where generals and others like them live, and streets on which slop is poured directly from the windows where shoemakers and other artisans live, if we remember how Raskolnikov’s clothes and housing are described, we will find a lot in common · Akaki Akakievich is a “little man,” perhaps the smallest in all Russian literature, you can’t imagine anything less. Next to him are even those who are usually called “little” - Pushkin’s Semyon Vyrin, who had a wife and daughter, and Dostoevsky’s Makar Devushkin, who was in correspondence with his beloved Varenka - people of a larger category, who managed to attract someone’s heart, to protect themselves a share of living space in which they also mean something. Akaki Akakievich does not mean anything to anyone - the only “pleasant friend” who “agreed to walk the road of life with him... was none other than the same overcoat...”. (M. Epstein “Prince Myshkin and Akaki Bashmachkin - to the image of a copyist”) · By the way, in this article Epstein says that Myshkin is also a passionate calligrapher. It’s very interesting, if you consider what is above – about your own and not your own words. And your world. In general, we compare what we read from Dostoevsky with that - everything is almost suitable)) · Chekhov’s little man, Chervyakov from “The Death of an Official,” who sneezed on a civil general in the theater, apologized and apologized, and then finally sneezed at him they yelled at him and he died. A petty personality can be both comical and tragic. A very typical type for the Russian mentality in principle. (Probably because of the long history of serfdom, because of the bureaucratic hierarchy, because of poverty and the opposition of a small person who has no influence on anything and whom no one hears, to the big and complex world). And it was Gogol who was able to present it so fully.

Sources:

IRL, volume two; ZhZL about Gogol; Yemets D.A. “What feelings connected Akakiy Bashmachkin with his overcoat”, Brifley - content of Poor People; M. Epstein “Prince Myshkin and Akaki Bashmachkin - to the image of a copyist”

History of creation

Gogol, according to the Russian philosopher N. Berdyaev, is “the most mysterious figure in Russian literature.” To this day, the writer’s works cause controversy. One of such works is the story “The Overcoat”.

In the mid-30s. Gogol heard a joke about an official who lost his gun. It sounded like this: there lived one poor official who was a passionate hunter. He saved for a long time for a gun, which he had long dreamed of. His dream came true, but, sailing across the Gulf of Finland, he lost it. Returning home, the official died of frustration.

The first draft of the story was called “The Tale of an Official Stealing an Overcoat.” In this version, some anecdotal motives and comic effects were visible. The official's last name was Tishkevich. In 1842, Gogol completed the story and changed the hero's surname. The story is published, completing the cycle of “Petersburg Tales”. This cycle includes the stories: “Nevsky Prospekt”, “The Nose”, “Portrait”, “The Stroller”, “Notes of a Madman” and “The Overcoat”. The writer worked on the cycle between 1835 and 1842. The stories are united based on a common place of events - St. Petersburg. Petersburg, however, is not only the place of action, but also a kind of hero of these stories, in which Gogol depicts life in its various manifestations. Typically, writers, when talking about St. Petersburg life, illuminated the life and characters of the capital's society. Gogol was attracted to petty officials, artisans, and poor artists - “little people.” It was no coincidence that St. Petersburg was chosen by the writer; it was this stone city that was especially indifferent and merciless to the “little man.” This topic was first opened by A.S. Pushkin. She becomes the leader in the work of N.V. Gogol.

Genre, genre, creative method

The story “The Overcoat” shows the influence of hagiographic literature. It is known that Gogol was an extremely religious person. Of course, he was well acquainted with this genre of church literature. Many researchers have written about the influence of the life of St. Akaki of Sinai on the story “The Overcoat,” including famous names: V.B. Shklovsky and G.P. Makogonenko. Moreover, in addition to the striking external similarity of the destinies of St. Akaki and Gogol's hero were traced the main common points of plot development: obedience, stoic patience, the ability to endure various kinds of humiliation, then death from injustice and - life after death.

The genre of “The Overcoat” is defined as a story, although its volume does not exceed twenty pages. It received its specific name - a story - not so much for its volume, but for its enormous semantic richness, which is not found in every novel. The meaning of the work is revealed only by compositional and stylistic techniques with the extreme simplicity of the plot. A simple story about a poor official who invested all his money and soul into a new overcoat, after the theft of which he dies, under the pen of Gogol found a mystical denouement and turned into a colorful parable with enormous philosophical overtones. “The Overcoat” is not just an accusatory satirical story, it is a wonderful work of art that reveals the eternal problems of existence that will not be translated either in life or in literature as long as humanity exists.

Sharply criticizing the dominant system of life, its internal falsehood and hypocrisy, Gogol’s work suggested the need for a different life, a different social structure. The great writer’s “Petersburg Tales,” which include “The Overcoat,” are usually attributed to the realistic period of his work. Nevertheless, they can hardly be called realistic. The sad story about the stolen overcoat, according to Gogol, “unexpectedly takes on a fantastic ending.” The ghost, in whom the deceased Akaki Akakievich was recognized, tore off everyone’s greatcoat, “without discerning rank and title.” Thus, the ending of the story turned it into a phantasmagoria.

The main character of Nikolai Gogol’s work is Akaki Bashmachnikov, who in Gogol’s story is humiliated and has no joys in life. In revealing the image of Akaki Akakievich, the overcoat plays an important role, which in the plot is not just a thing or some kind of object. The main character's overcoat is his goal, for the sake of which he is ready to do a lot. For example, to limit yourself in everything, to cut back on some means. And when he receives from the tailor Petrovich a new and unusual overcoat for him, which was sewn to his own order, then a better, happier and solemn day comes in the simple and joyless life of the character.

Purchasing such a simple new overcoat with all the hero’s money becomes a new meaning of life for him. And the description of how he looks at her, carefully and carefully takes her in his hands, as if precedes the description of his whole life. The tragedy of one “little man” is shown by the author in the conditions of a large city that simply puts pressure on him. In his short story, Nikolai Gogol shows how his hero tries to fight. He fights, first of all, for his existence, but he has to endure hardships and dissatisfaction with life, since he really wants to have a new overcoat.

Gogol's hero Bashmachnikov works all day in his department from morning to night, but cannot afford anything. That is why the overcoat that he sews at the tailor for himself turns out to be his most important life goal. But this goal of Akaki Akakievich also shows that a person sometimes needs very little to be happy.

This overcoat gives Akakiy Bashmachnikov the strength to live, the desire to cope with all difficulties. Emotions and feelings begin to awaken in him, as if Akaki Akakievich begins to gradually come to life. And although he does not yet have an overcoat, this dream of her awakens in him the desire to live. It seemed that everything had now changed in the life of the character Akakiy Bashmachnikov, that something completely new and unknown was waiting for him ahead, something that was supposed to bring him great joy. For the first time in many years of his entire existence, during which he received nothing for himself, he will be able to be rewarded for all his labors and efforts. For the sake of a new overcoat, which he simply needed, the main Gogol character is ready to make any sacrifice.

But it is not at all difficult for the hero to sacrifice himself, his life, because he was supported by his spiritual consciousness, which all the time whispered about a new overcoat. It's interesting how this idea originates in the main character's head and gradually changes him. Akakiy Bashmachnikov suddenly developed a character, he himself became more sociable and a little livelier, and indecision and doubt disappeared in his actions. He constantly thought about his overcoat, what it would look like, what kind of collar it would have. And sometimes the most daring thoughts were born in his head.

But dreaming of a marten for an overcoat collar for Akaki Akakievich was, of course, a decisive step, because he would not have had enough money for it, even if he had not bought anything or paid for anything all his life. It’s amazing that even dreams of a simple but new overcoat can change a person so dramatically. Sometimes the hero even imagined himself as an almost significant person, thinking about what his overcoat would look like.

And now comes a solemn and joyful day for Akaki Akakievich, when the overcoat is completely ready. When he was having dinner, he also laughed for the first time in his life when he compared his old overcoat with the one that was now sewn for him. And for the first time, he did not work at home, but lay on the bed for a while. This had never happened to him before. He went to visit, which he had never done before, and when he passed by the glass display case, he saw a cheerful picture and even smiled at it. While visiting, he decided to drink some champagne. And on the way back I even hurried after some lady, but then decided to leave this game.

The turning point comes when he has already lost his overcoat and this leads to the fact that he not only feels robbed, but also destroyed and humiliated. He begins to delirium and falls ill. Death frees the protagonist from suffering and humiliation. All his life, Gogol's hero was afraid. But after his death, he himself began to instill fear and horror in others. He especially did not allow passage on the bridge because he wore an overcoat, and it did not matter at all what it was made of, because he was interested in important and significant persons, before whom he trembled during his lifetime.

All his resentment against the life he had led now clearly manifested itself after his death, and he became a strange ghost who did not allow anyone to walk or drive across the bridge in peace. And the key subject in this becomes the image of the overcoat, which helped the reader to see something living and human in the hero. The overcoat is a protest of the “little man” against the existing structure of society. The character’s life exists only at that moment while his overcoat is being sewn and when it ends up in his hands. Therefore, the overcoat is of great importance in Nikolai Gogol’s story. These are material values ​​that the main character could achieve, and an object that helps him live, look at life around him in other words.