We trace the aspects of a structure of a text related to the motifs of literacy and word. This includes
the details of travel in which a sender is a clerk (pisar’ in Russian that is related to pisat’ –
“write”), the object to be delivered is a Letter, a messenger is a man who can read and write
(a rare quality in the environment). In doing so, physical travel between geographic points is
combined with the act of communication – transfer of words. This relationship reveals itself also
in a negative version when words disappear. As devils stole a horse, a character is forced to go by foot. As a result, the activity of foots and search for vanishing word (the Letter) are related
directly.
The Letter is delivered not one but three times. The 1st one is an unsuccessful attempt when
the character and the Letter turn out to be in the Hell. The 2nd case represents travel from the Hell
to home. The 3d case is an unsuccessful attempt when the character fulfills his task. Thus the
result is achieved on the 3d step – similarly to what happens during the card game. It is important
that the Letter arrives at the hero’s home as a result of the inverse travel from the Hell. Such
a spatial inversion is just typical of the other world.
Some moves in the plot can be thought of as realizations of proverbs. We reveal the role of
a number “five” as related to a hand and ability to write. The victory in a card play in Hell is interpreted
by us as the result of this ability, but in the inverted form. This corresponds to the
inverisons of usual norms in the Hell. We found anagrams in prose, mainly related to the varying
of the sound-and-theme complex “rozh”. It realizes the motifs of distorting face typical of the
Hell. In doing so, this distortion is duplicated by distortion of words.
The card game in the Hell can be considered as a battle for wisdom (as was pointed out by
M. Weisskopf earlier). Meanwhile, it concerns also a process itself that can be thought of as a
trial. The true meaning of such a trial consists just in that a hero has to reveal wisdom, distinguishing
the essence and appearance. When he makes the sign of cross-over, he does fullfills the
action of this type. In other words, it was important not only to beat the evil spirit. It was also
important to perform it having found a clue to its crafty designs.
We trace the signs of hidden presence of evil spirit in everyday life. Sliding apart of legs
of drunk people are interpreted as the sign of "evil writing" in which hands are replaced with legs.
We explain obsession experienced by a main character's wife as a result of his return from the
Hell. One of main properties of evil spirit is the tendency to breaking up the things and creation of
maximum uncertainty, including de-identification of personality. The success of the enterprise in
which the Letter was delivered to the addressee, is due to the maximum integration of separate
elements into a single whole.
Gogol N. V. Polnoe sobranie sochineniy [The complete collection]. In 14 vols. AS USSR; Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkinskiy Dom). [Moscow, Leningrad], AS USSR Publ., 1940, vol. 1. (in Russ.)
Gogol N. V. Polnoe sobranie sochineniy i pisem [The complete col-lection]. In 23 vols. Moscow, Nauka, 2003, vol. 1. (in Russ.)
Goldenberg A. Kh. Arkhetipy v poetike N. V. Gogolya [Archetypes in poetics of N. V. Gogol]. Volgograd, Peremena Publ., 2009. (in Russ.)
Ishchuk-Fadeeva N. I. Mir Gogolya kak «zakoldovannoe mesto» [Gogol’s world as «place bewitched»]. Gogolevskie chteniya – 2007 [Gogol’s readings. 2007] URL: http://domgogolya.ru/ sci-ence/researches/1473/ (in Russ.)
Karasev L. V. Fleyta Gamleta. Ocherk ontologicheskoi poetiki [Ham-let’s flute]. Moscow, Znak Publ., 2009. (in Russ.)
Krivonos V. Sh. Gogol. Problemy tvorchestva i interpretatsii [Gogol. Problems of creativity and interpretation]. Moscow, Flinta, 2015. (in Russ.)
Mann Yu. Tvorchestvo Gogolya. Smysl i forma [Gogol's works. Meaning and form]. St. Petersburg, 2007. (in Russ.)
Propp V. Ya. Istoricheskie korni volshebnoy skazki [Historical Roots of the Fairy Tale]. M0scow, Labirint, 2000. (in Russ.)
Sedakova I. A. Ded. Slavyanskie drevnosti [Slavic antiquities] Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 1999, vol. 2. (in Russ.)
Sofronova L. A. Mifopoetika rannego Gogolya [Mythopoetics of early Gogol]. St. Petersburg, Aleteiya, 2010. (in Russ.)
Solivetti C. Avtor i ego zerkala [Author and his mirrors]. St. Petersburg, Aleteiya, 2005. (in Russ.)
Valentsova M. M. Krysha [Ruth]. Slavyanskie drevnosti [Slavic antiq-uities]. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2004. (in Russ.)
Weisskopf M. Syuzhet Gogolya [Gogol's plot]. Moscow, Russian State University for the Humanaities, 2002. (in Russ.)
Zaslavskiy O. B. «Ochami v ochi» (O proizvedenii Gogolya «Nochi na ville») [“Eyes to eyes”. (On the work by Gogol’ “Nights at the Villa”]. Izv. RAN. Seriya literatury i yazyka [Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Studies in Language and Literature], 2004, vol. 63, no. 4, p. 26–31. (in Russ.)
Zaslavskiy O. B. Problema slova v povesti N. V. Gogolya «Viy» [The problem of word in the N. V. Gogol’s “Viy”]. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, 1997, Band 39 (in Russ.)