Transcript

1 A. A. SMIRNOV LITERARY THEORY OF RUSSIAN CLASSICISM Moscow

2 Contents Preface Introduction 2 6 Chapter 1. Prerequisites for the theory of classicism in Russia 6 11 Chapter 2. Classicism about the social significance of poetry Chapter 3. Classicism about the specifics of poetic creativity Chapter 4. Classicism about the cognitive significance of the art of poetry Chapter 5 The category of genre in the theoretical system of classicism Chapter 6 Problems of poetic style in the theory of Russian classicism Chapter 7. The fate of the literary theory of classicism at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. Conclusion List of cited literature Bibliography

3 PREFACE The purpose of this book is to serve as a special guide for students of philological faculties of universities in their work on general and special courses on Russian history literature XVII I century. It can also be used by senior students when studying literary trends in special seminars. These tasks determine the general structure and method of presenting the material. The question of the literary theory of Russian classicism is included in the current program on the history of Russian literature for philological departments of universities. In existing textbooks intended for junior students, the theory of Russian classicism is presented extremely briefly, reflecting the state of that stage of its scientific research, which was characteristic of the 1990s. Over the past time, extensive literature has appeared, which has made it possible to rethink the topic and begin its further development. This circumstance, as well as the insufficient knowledge of the methodology of comparative historical analysis of national literary theories, explains the creation of this manual. The book grew out of many years of scientific research and methodological developments of the author, as well as his teaching activities at the Department of History of Russian Literature of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, where both individual sections of the manual and its general concept were first tested. In constructing the work, the author follows the internal logic of those ideas and concepts that arose in the theoretical self-awareness of Russian writers of the 18th century. First, the origins of the theory of classicism in the poetics of F. Prokopovich are traced. The central place is occupied by the analysis of the views of Lomonosov, Trediakovsky and Sumarokov on the role of poetry in public and state life. Two chapters of the manual are devoted to the consideration of the problems of the specifics of poetic activity (the problem of imitation of nature, the theory of fiction, the doctrine of verisimilitude) and the cognitive significance of creativity (the role of reason and feelings in knowledge, the relationship between natural talent, talent and rules, traditions) in the theoretical manifestos and declarations of Russian classicists . Special chapters reveal the uniqueness of the categories of genre (criteria of value, grounds for their differentiation) and style (the relationship between linguistic norms and speech use, criteria of perfection). The final chapter provides an overview general trends development of the theory of classicism at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries.

4 INTRODUCTION 1 The subject of this work is literary theory Russian classicism, the leading movement in literature of the 18th century. The theoretical self-awareness of the writers of that time, their understanding of their own creative principles organically included both a general philosophical justification for the specifics of literature and narrow stylistic problems. The ideas and principles of rhetoric, criticism, stylistics, poetics, and the history of verbal art coexisted in close unity. In attempts to identify the specifics of literary and artistic creativity, writers and critics of the era of classicism consistently did not distinguish between literary theory and aesthetics. The distinction between the aesthetic and the logical remained in the 18th century. quantitative in terms of the degree of clarity of cognition. Isolating the literary and theoretical principles of creativity and the corresponding type of artistic thinking as a subject of special research is legitimate. For many years, both theory and history literary creativity existed within the framework of literary trends programs, which was especially clearly manifested in the Russian literary process of the 18th century. Poetry as an art focuses on special artistic principles, which, as they are realized, receive their formulation in author’s manifestos and theoretical declarations, various kinds of recommendations regulating the work of poets. The process of formation of literary movements is directly related to the theoretical formulation of their aesthetic program. In the system of classicism, literary theory acquired a normative character: the theoretical justification of creativity was a necessary prerequisite for poetic practice. A literary work was considered a type of scientific creativity that claimed universal significance and could not be limited to the expression of individual quests. Consideration of the literary theory of Russian classicism as a special system of views on the nature, essence and tasks of poetry requires clarification not only of the content of individual problems, but also of their genesis. In this regard, many aspects of the literary theory of Russian classicism can be correctly understood against the background of similar phenomena of the European literary process. Since literary trends exist as factors of international development, it is necessary to take into account the interaction of various national poetic theories. The work will analyze such important monuments of the literary and aesthetic thought of Russian classicism as Lomonosov’s Rhetoric, his 2

5 Preface on the benefits of church books in the Russian language, A word of thanks for the consecration of the Academy of Arts, On the current state of verbal sciences in Russia. Of Trediakovsky’s works, the most important for our topic are his prefaces to Argenida Barkley and Tilemachide, as well as the articles Opinion on the beginning of poetry and poetry in general, A letter to a friend about the current benefit of citizenship from poetry, A letter containing a discussion about the poem... , On ancient, middle and new Russian poems, Discourse on comedy in general, Discourse on odes in general, Discourse on the purity of the Russian language. Sumarokov’s theoretical thought received the most clear expression in the articles On unnaturalness, To senseless rhymers, To typographic typesetters, A letter on reading novels, On the poetry of the Kamchadals, Criticism of an ode, Response to criticism, On the extermination of foreign words from the Russian language, Opinion in a dream about French tragedies, the Sermon at the opening of the Academy of Arts and especially in his epistles about poetry and the Russian language. Essential material for understanding the literary theory of Russian classicism is contained in an anonymously published article in the journal Monthly Works on the qualities of a poet. Reasoning 1. There is often no coincidence between the form that poetic theory takes as presented by the author and its actual content in the system, so the task of the work is not so much a description of the views of individual representatives of Russian classicism, as well as a reconstruction of the system of ideas as a whole. 2 In pre-revolutionary literary criticism, the question of a special study of the literary theory of Russian classicism as a system was not raised. A negative attitude towards the national uniqueness of Russian classicism manifested itself in the critical debates of the Romantic era and was reflected in the concepts of the authors of university courses in the 19th and early 20th centuries. (A. N. Pypin, E. V. Petukhov, A. S. Arkhangelsky, A. M. Loboda) and textbooks for gymnasiums (P. V. Smirnovsky, V. F. Savodnik), who persistently pursued the idea of ​​unoriginal character Russian pseudo-classicism, false classicism. The revision of the thesis about the imitation of Russian classicism began in the works of Soviet literary scholars of the 20s. In a special course on the history of Russian classicism, P. N. Sakulin stated: We have the right to talk about Russian classicism, remaining 1 There are different opinions regarding the attribution of this work to Lomonosov. L. B. Modzalevsky in his doctoral dissertation names G. N. Teplov as the alleged author. 3

6 on the basis of only theoretical principles 2 Fundamental significance for the entire Soviet science of literature of the 18th century. had the works of G. A. Gukovsky, in which he deeply explored the national characteristics of Russian classicism. The problem of the specific features of the literary theories of Lomonosov, Trediakovsky and Sumarokov was posed in the works of G. A. Gukovsky and P. N. Berkov in the 30s. In the works of D. D. Blagoy, G. N. Pospelov, A. N. Sokolov, the study of the national originality of Russian classicism was deepened and expanded. IN close connection with the development of the history of Russian criticism, L. I. Kulakova analyzed the main stages in the development of aesthetic teachings in Russia in the 18th century. In the 60s, articles by G. A. Gukovsky from the 40s were posthumously published, in which he consistently characterizes Russian classicism as a unique type of aesthetic thinking and substantiates the need for a systematic study of the literary-critical and literary-aesthetic views of Lomonosov, Trediakovsky and Sumarokov. Considering controversial and unexplored problems of the literary process of the 18th century. in domestic and foreign science, P. N. Berkov came to the conclusion that it was inappropriate to study literature according to directions and proposed to remove even the term classicism itself. G. P. Makogonenko, without denying the progressive nature of classicism in Russia, believes that the main content of the historical and literary process of the 18th century. in Russia is the development of educational realism. A. A. Morozov, considering the Baroque the leading direction in literature, attributes many writers of the 18th century to it. 3 Most researchers are in favor of an in-depth study of Russian classicism. According to K.V. Pigarev, in the characterization of the national uniqueness of Russian classicism, much remains only approximately outlined. In an essay on the historiography of Russian literature of the 18th century. P. N. Berkov speaks of the need to pay more attention to the analysis of the theoretical and aesthetic views of Russian writers of the 18th century. . The authors of a general work on history point out that the problem of connections between the theory of Russian classicism and the initial stage of the emergence of the Russian science of literature has not been fully developed. Russian literary studies The emergence of the Russian science of literature (71). In a detailed and in-depth study by G.V. Moskvicheva, dedicated to the genre system of Russian classicism, it is noted that the problem of Russian classicism, 2 Here and below, the first number in brackets indicates the serial number under which the source is placed in the list of references, and the second page of the cited work; The Roman numeral indicates the volume. 3 For a general summary of opinions on this issue, see the book: Chernov I. A. From lectures on theoretical literary criticism. Vol. 1, Baroque, Tartu,

7 despite significant achievements of modern science, and currently does not seem to be solved. The author of the newest textbook on Russian literature of the 18th century points out the insufficient development of aesthetic and literary concepts associated with the study of classicism. Yu.I. Minerals and. 3 The literary and theoretical views of representatives of Russian classicism have not yet been sufficiently studied, among modern scientists there is no unity of opinion on the question of what determined the stability and integrity of the literary doctrine of Russian classicism, the content of the theoretical problems of this literary movement is incompletely defined, the goals and objectives are largely inaccurately clarified, that our theorists put forward, and, finally, the degree of originality and the degree of traditionalism of their literary views remains unclear. We are faced with the task of explaining the connection and interrelation of the basic concepts and categories with which the classicists operated, and answering the question of what are the main features of the type of thinking that manifested itself in the leading principles of their literary program. We strive to show what brought Russian classicists together and constituted a single platform for this literary movement, revealing the literary theory of Russian classicism as a consistent and complete system. It seems that the development of a theory of Russian classicism at the system level is a necessary methodological basis for the modern stage of its study. The study of any system involves identifying its main components, establishing stable mutual connections and relationships between them, and identifying system-forming, leading principles. It is important for us to focus on the internal logic and stable patterns of literary and theoretical thought of Russian classicists. Distraction from the specifics of particular problems does not mean going beyond the specific texts presenting literary theory. The main task is to determine the new specific classicistic content of the literary theory of Lomonosov, Trediakovsky and Sumarokov. In the concepts and terms of the literary theory of classicism, a historically specific type of perception of works of poetic art is recorded. And in order to correctly grasp its specificity, it is necessary to restore the corresponding features of the process of theoretical understanding of the facts of literary creativity. You should immediately point out the following: theoretical poetics The 18th century, of course, could not fully explain everything that existed in the literary practice of the 18th century writers, the analysis of which remains beyond the scope of this work. 5

8 CHAPTER 1 PREREQUISITES OF THE THEORY OF CLASSICISM (Poetics of F. Prokopovich) 1 Classicism as a literary movement becomes a decisive factor in the development of Russian literature in the 40s of the 18th century. and exists as a historically developing whole until the 70s, when signs of pre-romanticism clearly emerged. By the end of the 10s and the beginning of the 20s of the XIX century. classicism ends its existence. The prerequisites for classicism on Russian soil arise in late XVI I early XVIII century. It was at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries. In school poetics, some of the main problems of the future literary theory of Russian classicism were outlined. The result of the literary views of representatives of school poetics was F. Prokopovich’s treatise On the Art of Poetry, written in 1705 and published in Latin in 1786. The historical and literary significance of this work is that it contains a number of provisions that precede the literary theory of Russian classicism. F. Prokopovich’s focus on systematizing previous works is combined with a persistent desire to make his own contribution to science, to add something to so many works of rich talents. 4. F. Prokopovich sees the main subject of poetry in the depiction of human actions through poetic speech; he distinguishes poetry from the general sphere rhetoric and objects to Cicero regarding the differences in the tasks of the poet and the orator. He further notes that human feeling in the form of love was the first creator of poetry; Having arisen in the cradle of nature itself, poetry is based on sensual fury. This distinctly Renaissance view leads him to prove the moral benefits of poetry and the legitimacy of its existence as a special type of creativity. The humanistic orientation is also noticeable in the choice of authorities. If neo-Latin authors (J. Pontan, A. Donat, J. Masen, G. Foss, to whom F. Prokopovich often refers) substantiated their conclusions with references to Christian scholarship, then Prokopovich directly turns to ancient authors who are well known to him from the time stay in Rome, when he had the opportunity to read the texts of ancient authors, not spoiled by the editing of the Jesuits. He examines in most detail the question of the social significance of poetry: The very subject with which poetry is usually concerned gives it enormous importance and value, 6

9 because it glorifies great people and transmits the memory of them to posterity. Eradicating vices and promoting the development of social virtues, poetry inspires people to military and civil exploits; philosophy itself is either born or nurtured by poetry. Poetry successfully performs cognitive and educational functions, according to Prokopovich, only thanks to the relationship between benefit and pleasure: A poem that delights but does not bring benefit is empty and like a child’s rattle. That which strives to be useful without pleasure is unlikely to be useful. He severely condemns Catullus and Ovid for their departure from morality and explains: If you want to understand what true pleasure is, call this pleasure healthy, and not infectious. He considers the unity of benefit and entertainment to be an indispensable condition for the social impact of poetry. 2 At the center of F. Prokopovich’s theoretical treatise are the problems of imitation and fiction. He separates imitation of nature from imitation of literary models. In the latter, he traditionally sees one of the ways to improve mastery, emphasizing the role of tradition, previous experience, the assimilation of which is active in poetry: Thinking, having mastered the writer’s style, turns into his thinking and sometimes creates works similar to his with greater ease; imitation consists in some coincidence of our thinking with the thinking of some exemplary author, so that even though we did not take anything from him and transfer it into our work, it would seem as if it were his work, and not ours: to such an extent may be similar style!. F. Prokopovich develops the ideas of Ronsard and Du Bellay about creative borrowing from ancient authors: You can compose something according to the model of Virgil, or develop it in the same way, or even borrow something from him. If a borrowing is discovered, then let it turn out to be more beautiful and better from the imitator than from the author himself. In the problem of imitation of nature, F. Prokopovich essentially comes very close to the classicist understanding of the specifics of poetry, its specific uniqueness. The origins of the theory of imitation on Russian soil can be traced back to the poetics of the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries. 5 The authors of this poetics were not distinguished by unity of views on the problems of imitation and fiction: poetry was conceptualized either as a science that expresses in poetic form the imitation of people’s actions, or as the art of depicting fictional acts 4 All quotations in the text are given only from the indicated 1961 edition. 5 Before this period, such questions did not arise in Russian literature. See: Berkov P. N. Essay on the development of Russian literary terminology before the beginning of the 19th century. //Izv. USSR Academy of Sciences, ser. language and literature, 1964, vol. 23, 7

10 people in verse, and fiction came closer to imitation of the truth of a separate fact. School poetics freely and approximately conveyed Aristotle as interpreted by neo-Latin theorists of the 16th and 17th centuries. J. Pontana, J. Mason, A. Donat, G. Fossa and others. Fiction was identified with imitation, sometimes with invention. Imitation of models and imitation of nature are distinguished vaguely and formally. The understanding of fiction as fiction led to the increased cultivation of funny verse, which was given a significant place in the applied part of poetics; in this one can see the influence of the Polish-German baroque traditions. Fiction is understood as a means to create a fascinating plot; Without revealing the truth of the real, it loses its cognitive meaning and comes closer to the concept of the miraculous. F. Prokopovich reveals a holistic understanding of the problems of fiction and imitation: he develops the idea of ​​creative imitation by comparing history and poetry, poetry and philosophy, poetry and rhetoric. He considers the poetic form to be an insignificant sign of the poetic and cites Aristotle’s remark that if Empedocles and Herodotus had written their works in verse, they could not be called poets. F. Prokopovich sees the creative principle of poetry in the imitation of human actions through fiction, insisting on the idea that it is more correct to call a poet a creator, writer or imitator, since he invents various experiences of the soul in the characters. Therefore, no matter how many poems you write, they will all remain nothing more than poems, and it will be unfair to call them poetry. Deprived of the freedom to invent the plausible, history, even written in verse, will remain history, not poetry. Imitation is a specific side of poetic creativity, the main means of which is fiction, which contributes to the creation of an artistic image as a unity of the general and the individual. Already in the first book On Poetic Art, F. Prokopovich brings together the concepts of invention and imitation: To invent or depict means to imitate the thing whose photograph or likeness is depicted. Historical writing differs from poetic writing in that poetry glorifies the fictitious, reproducing things through images. The main difference between a historian and a poet is that the historian tells about the actual event, as it happened; with the poet, either the entire story is fictitious, or even if he describes the true story, he talks about it not as it happened in reality, but as it could or should have happened. It is fiction that carries out the function of generalization in a poetic work and determines the creative nature of activity c. 3.8

11 poets. But the sphere of fiction is not limitless: its object can only be natural phenomena, excluding fantasy. The author's fiction is limited and within the limits of the work the poet must comply with the requirements of verisimilitude and achieve persuasiveness: the poet invents the plausible even when there are cases that did not occur in reality, and nothing extraordinary or beyond the bounds of probability should be added to them. According to Prokopovich, poetic fiction, or imitation, should be understood not only as an interweaving of plots, but also as all methods of description by which human actions, even if genuine, are nevertheless depicted believably. To achieve the verisimilitude that makes a narrative worthy of trust is possible provided that we mainly avoid three shortcomings: inconsistency, impossibility and contradiction. The unnatural, unreasonable and uncharacteristic were excluded from the sphere of art. Poetic fiction can be of two types: fiction of the event itself and fiction of the way in which this event occurred. In both cases, the tasks of the poet differ from the tasks of the historian: the first type of fiction includes the depiction of events that never happened in reality and therefore did not become facts of historical reality; in the second type, a true event through the fiction of how it happened, changes significantly and appears only as possible. Fiction of the first type is divided into seemingly plausible and seemingly incredible, implausible. F. Prokopovich suggests using only the first type of fiction. Although F. Prokopovich generally follows the late Renaissance theory of poetry, it is important to note in his theory a new desire, foreshadowing signs of classicism, to bring together fiction and imitation and, on this basis, to identify the specifics of poetry as an art. If a comparison of poetry and history should reveal the specificity of art in relation to the individual, then a comparison of the poet and philosopher in relation to the general: Poetry also diverges from philosophy, because the philosopher analyzes the general in general and does not limit it to any particularities, while the poet represents the general in form of special actions. F. Prokopovich concludes: Poetry is different from philosophy and history and somehow touches them as if with both hands. Here he outlines, in fact, a classicist understanding of the way of typifying human characters: some human actions seem arbitrary, others are considered as inevitable due to natural properties. Referring to Aristotle, he calls for celebrating common virtues and vices in certain individuals. So, for example, when depicting a ruler, it is necessary to reproduce only those 9

12 sides of his character that are inherent in him not as a private individual, but as a ruler. Each character must appear before the reader in a specific field of activity, while the private properties and habits of a particular person are excluded when creating the image: If a poet wants to sing of a brave commander, he does not inquisitively examine how he waged a war, but considers in what way he should wage Any brave commander ascribes this method to his hero. Loyalty to nature should not contradict the social status of the person depicted: this or that character is characterized in terms of social duties. The superiority of poetry over history lies in the generalizing aspect of the artistic image. The requirement of verisimilitude in relation to character is called decorum. 6 This term means that when depicting any character, the author must choose only what is decent and appropriate to the social status of a given person: the poet should carefully consider what is appropriate for such and such a person, time, place and what is suitable for this or that person, i.e. expression his face, gait, appearance, attire, various body movements and gestures. F. Prokopovich is outraged by any violation of this rule. He sharply attacks the essay of a certain Canon About the Bosnian Mines, where the king’s daughter begs her father to give her salt mines. Bizarre characters and situations in Baroque works evoked a negative attitude from him. F. Prokopovich adhered to the tradition of Aristotle on the issue of the relationship between art and reality (in terms of artistic knowledge), but in the interpretation of reality itself as a philosophical category, he significantly diverged from him. If for Aristotle a sufficient basis for recognizing the fact of reality was its logical consistency, then for F. Prokopovich the reality of reality should be independent of the will of the poet. An appeal to ancient poetics and the humanistic theories of the Renaissance, the desire to go beyond the creative practice of the Baroque, attempts to give a holistic and consistent answer to the question of the specifics of poetry - all this characterizes F. Prokopovich as a unique theorist in the history of Russian poetic thought. 6 F. Prokopovich borrows the concept of decorum from J. Vida, who demanded that certain proportions be observed when depicting a character, indicating the age, gender, social rank and nationality of the hero; Cicero and Quintilian demanded the same from the rhetorician. 10

13 CHAPTER 2 CLASSICISM ABOUT THE SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF POETRY 1 IN THE XVIII century. The capabilities of Russian literary figures are expanding unusually, their self-awareness is being formed, Russian literature is becoming the most important means of quickly and effectively disseminating the ideas of enlightenment and humanism. The establishment of new ideas in the Peter the Great era, which reflected national interests and therefore had progressive significance, found its direct expression in the art of classicism. Writers are realizing their creative individuality and their tasks in a fundamentally new way. Classicism freed the world of the individual from many traditions and conventions of frozen scholasticism, revealing new aspects of human nature, revealing the contradiction between the church’s idea of ​​​​the depravity of man and the humanistic thought about the natural character of man’s good and free will. In the era of classicism, it is not the dogma of Christian teaching, but the truth of reason, that is, the truth known by the human mind, that determines the principles of depicting a person. Classicists sought to find a humanistic justification for the goals and purpose of poetry, as opposed to the patristic and medieval opinion that poetry represents the untrue and fictitious. Within the framework of the so-called theory of the seven liberal arts of the Middle Ages, poetry was interpreted only as versified rhetoric. The main argument of humanists in favor of the existence of poetry is its necessity for virtue. Poetry is put at the service of civil and national-patriotic goals. Thanks to its ability to entertain, it teaches virtue with greater effect than philosophy. The emergence of the concept of poetic individuality in Russian literature dates back to the era of classicism. This is the result of a new socio-economic and political situation, the people of the Middle Ages, with their transcendentally oriented worldview and economic dependence on the feudal lord, could not solve such a problem. 2 The central place in the poetics of Russian classicism was occupied by the question of the social significance of poetry. Advanced Russian poets and critics of the 18th century. persistently asserted the socially useful role of art, poetry was for them a means of implementing high civic ideals. The rationalistic justification for creativity led directly to the demand for public benefit; poetry was perceived as 11

14 a special kind of moralizing philosophy. By its very essence, it is designed to exert a moral influence on a person, contributing to the political and civic education of people. But edifying didacticism, which denies the possibility of expressing the poet’s personal aspirations, is alien to Russian classicism. Sumarokov, in his article On Criticism, states: Criticism brings benefit and averts harm, it is necessary for the benefit of the people. . The author spoke with indignation about the qualities of a reasoning poet about that poet who would curse the desire to serve the people with science. Kantemir assessed the meaning of poetic activity from a civic perspective: Everything that I write is written as a citizen, almost every line contains some kind of rule useful for the establishment of life. Trediakovsky and Sumarokov concentrated their efforts on justifying the moral purpose of poetry, Lomonosov rushed towards the broad horizons of its social tasks. In the remaining unfinished review of the current state of verbal sciences in Russia, Lomonosov from the first lines speaks about the benefits and power of the poetic word: If exercise in verbal sciences is useful for human society, this is evidenced by (crossed out the European word. A.S.) ancient and modern peoples. Having kept silent about so many well-known examples, let us imagine France alone, about which one can rightly doubt whether it was by its power that it attracted other states to its veneration more or by the sciences, especially verbal ones, having purified and decorated its language with the diligence of skilled writers (13, VII, 581]. C the position of strict moralism is condemned by Anacreon in the article On the qualities of the poet, a discussion that only with his lyre he made a reproach to the muses about vile and supernatural deeds, speaking so sweetly. This article firmly and adamantly affirms the civic purpose of the poet: If from the rules of politics you already know the position of a citizen, the position of a friend. and a position in the owner’s house and all the articles that practice in philosophy teaches, then it is not difficult to decorate the wealth of thoughts with poetry, if only you had a poetic spirit. The entire content of poetry is comprehended from the point of view of its social impact, since the poet must serve as science. people, to publish something educational. The ending of this article is especially remarkable, in which with the utmost clarity the author formulates in the words of Cicero his social and poetic credo: I do not see a poet in trifles, I want to see him in the society of a citizen, measuring human vices with his finger. . The poet's public service, patriotic orientation, and glorification of the glory of the fatherland are all the main criteria for evaluating a poetic creation. Exactly 12

15 Lomonosov points to them in his dedication to Rhetoric: The bliss of the human race, since so much depends on the word, everyone can quite see. How would it be possible for scattered peoples to gather in communities, to create cities, to build temples and ships, to take up arms against the enemy and other necessary, allied forces that require work, if they did not have a way to communicate their thoughts to each other? The successes of modern literature are significant precisely in correcting human morals, in describing the glorious deeds of heroes and in many political behaviors. Russian literature, according to Lomonosov, will bring world glory to his state: The language that the Russian state rules over a great part of the world, in its power, has a natural abundance, beauty and strength, which is not inferior to any European language. And there is no doubt that the Russian word could not be brought to such perfection as we are surprised at in others. Lomonosov continues to develop thoughts about the glory and greatness of the Fatherland in the Preface about the benefits of church books, where he speaks with admiration about those who strive to glorify the Fatherland in natural language, knowing that with the fall of it, without writers skilled in it, the glory of the entire people will be greatly eclipsed. Many nations have not retained outstanding events in their memory national history, and everyone was plunged into deep ignorance, since these events were not reflected in poetry due to the lack of skilled writers. The fate of the peoples of Greece and Rome, whose world-famous writers conveyed to us their glorious history, is different: Through sounds in distant centuries the loud voice of writers is heard preaching the deeds of their heroes, so that later descendants, distant by great antiquity and the distance of places, listen to them with with the same movement of the heart as their modern fellow Earthmen. A great future is opening up for Russian literature as well: Our fatherland received such happiness from the enlightenment of Petrov<...>in Russia, verbal sciences will never allow the Russian word to decline. Enlightenment and the development of Russian literature are inseparable in achieving their patriotic goal. Similar problematics are found in Lomonosov’s judgments about the fine arts and architecture. In the Word of thanks for the consecration of the Academy of Arts, he notes: sculptural images, reviving metal and stone, represent Russian heroes and heroines in gratitude for their services to the fatherland, as an example and to encourage their descendants to courageous virtue; painters will bring to the present the burden of past Russian deeds to show the ancient glory of our forefathers, in order to provide instruction in matters that extend to the common benefit. Thus, Lomonosov approached the assessment of the social significance of literature 13

16 with broad national criteria that opened up European horizons for it. Russian literature must become as great as ancient literatures, but its benefits will not be confined to a narrow national framework; it will have to eclipse the glory of its neighbors and surpass their achievements. The basis of his confidence was the activity of an enlightened monarch, whose beneficial influence on culture was not questioned by Lomonosov. 3 Sumarokov also put forward the thesis about the social benefits of art, demanded the direct educational impact of poetry and drama on society, as a result of which a noble and virtuous nobleman would have a harmonizing influence on all public life. Any genre of literature only gains the right to exist when it has certain civil and moral goals and objectives. Sumarokov wants to justify his position philosophically. Polemicizing with the views of Rousseau in his article On Superstition and Hypocrisy, he calls virtue the main science. Sumarokov is alien to the republican pathos of Rousseau's moralism, since he advocates the subordination of human passions to the supreme power in the person of an ideal noble sovereign, and not for the fullness and freedom of disclosure of human feelings and passions. Sumarokov came closer to Western European moralism in that education is the most important means social progress, but his understanding of the political and ideological content of this progress is sharply different: Sumarokov denies the virtue of sentimentalism and defends the ideals of stoicism, citizenship, and renunciation of personal passions. Particularly indicative in this regard are his judgments about the drama of Eugene Beaumarchais, in which the condemnation of the inconsistency and inconsistency of the feelings and behavior of the protagonist comes to the fore. This condemnation of Sumarokov comes from the standpoint of stoic morality: This rake and deceiver, worthy of the gallows for desecrating religion and the noble daughter whom he fraudulently deceived, is deceiving another bride, a noble maiden; goes from idleness to idleness, refuses his bride and, suddenly changing his system again, marries his first wife a second time, but who will vouch for such a vile person; that he won’t marry anyone else tomorrow unless the government and clergy exterminate him. This vile rake is not subject to weakness and delusion, but to dishonesty and crime. This attitude towards the hero of Beaumarchais is understandable in the light of the demands that Sumarokov made to the theater. He needs the benefit directly displayed on stage, 14

17 active impact on the viewer. Thus, in a letter to Catherine II, he motivates the need to create a permanent theater in Moscow as follows: A theater is more needed here than in St. Petersburg, because there are more people and stupidity here. Moscow demands a hundred Moliers, and I am the only one with other matters regarding my exercises. G. A. Gukovsky in his article Russian Literary Critical Thought in the years connected the tendencies of Sumarokov’s moralism, the cult of virtue and emotional soulfulness with the worldview of the early movements of sentimentalism. This statement requires some clarification. There is no doubt that moralism constitutes the most important aspect of the ideological content of both sentimentalists and classicists, but its specific content among the writers of these two movements is radically different: sentimentalism proceeded from subjective-individual, and classicism from civil-political ideals. Thus, in the article Is a Man Born for Good or for Worse?, full of hidden polemics with Rousseau, Sumarokov writes: We are inclined toward virtue not by nature, but by morality and politics. Morals and politics make us, by the measure of enlightening the mind and purifying the hearts, useful to the common good. Sumarokov insists that morality without politics is useless, politics without morality is inglorious. The writer is not only a moralist, but also an active politician; morality contributes to the cause of civic education only when it is inextricably linked with politics. Sumarokov distinguishes painters and sculptors from artisans on the basis that the fine arts, like the art of speech, carry out cognitive and educational tasks. In his Address to the opening of the Academy of Arts, Sumarokov explains the social benefits of the fine arts as follows: The bodily qualities of great people, which neither history nor poetry can explain, are outlined in our minds, revive the images of their spiritual qualities and give a desire to imitate them, for in bodily forms the subtlest spiritual qualities are hidden. The role of such images is very great: they multiply heroic fire and love for the fatherland, pass on enlightenment to posterity in history; the power of contagion in the imitation of glorious deeds, the delight of the curious and the benefit of the world. Also, pyitic expressions and their images serve the knowledge of nature, imitation of great deeds, aversion from vices and everything that humanity requires for correction. The high mission of poetry and its social purpose place strict demands on the poet: he bears full responsibility for the verisimilitude of what is depicted and for the active influence on the reader. 4 Discussed the issue of public appointments even more passionately and interestedly 15

18 poetry Trediakovsky. Since ancient times human history poetry has become more famous: it prophesies truly from the right, falsely from flatterers; instructions on virtuous living are taught; laws are prescribed, in a word, everything that is most important and great is included. The purpose of poetry is to make people better people. The idea of ​​utilitarian art is outlined in his preface to the book Trip to the Island of Love, where the reader is invited to enjoy the wise moral teaching contained in almost every line. In the article Opinion on the beginning of poetry and poetry in general, Trediakovsky emphasized that from the moment of its inception, poetry taught a way of life and showed the path to virtues. The idea of ​​the moral benefits of poetry is a cross-cutting theme in most of Trediakovsky’s other arguments. The preface to Argenida says that the author’s intention in composing this great story is to offer perfect instruction on how to act as a sovereign. Developing this idea in the preface to Tilemakhida, he deliberately combines the moral and political benefits of poetry. Only in this unity will it be able to fulfill its civic purpose as a means of teaching the truth and awakening in us the hidden springs of our soul into mobility. Fenelon achieved extraordinary success because he combined the most perfect politics with the utmost virtue. According to Trediakovsky, the primary goal in an ironic creation is instruction; he perceived the epic poem as a kind of moralizing philosophy. Let us remember that Lomonosov took the same position in relation to the works of Fenelon, believing that they contain examples and teachings about politics and good morals. A special place among Trediakovsky’s works, which examine the social meaning of poetry, is occupied by his Letter to a Friend about the current benefit of poetry to citizenship. The course of his reasoning can be understood as follows. In ancient times, poetry described the brave and glorious deeds of great people, instructed in virtue and corrected human morals, proposed philosophical dogmas, laid down rules for obtaining from justice both true well-being and peaceful cohabitation. In subsequent times, it was supplanted by prose: What would be the need for poetry and verse now, when everything is corrected by prose. At the present time, poetry is losing its significance, since unfavorable social conditions prevent the fulfillment of the high mission of the political and moral education of the people: This busy function of poetry in ancient times and the untold benefits received from them then would be in our times of equal importance and just as much respect, 16

19 If only all these high advantages had not now been taken away from poetry; Previously, poetry was a necessary and useful thing, but now it is a comforting and cheerful pastime. Therefore, he looks skeptically at the future development of poetry: from poetry, there is truly neither the greatest need nor the most significant benefit, it is needed insofar as fruits and sweets are on the rich table for solid foods. Deprived of its moral and political meaning, it becomes fun and entertains through the struggle of witty inventions, through the skillful combination and position of flowers and colors, through the amazing harmony of strings, sounds and singing, through the delicious mixing and dissolution of various juices and fruits. Trediakovsky’s thoughts about the civic sound of poetry are filled with notes of skepticism when he turns to modernity. 5 The second aspect of the problem of the social role of art was the relationship between the useful and the pleasant as the expected results of the impact of poetry on the reader. The ideal of Russian classicists was organic compound instructions and delights: The ironic Pyima also gives firm instruction to the human race, teaching this to love virtue, teaching not with a gloomy, frowning gaze or a powerful voice deafening in arrogance, but with a kindly and touching face, amusing and amusing with songs. Russian classicists are devoid of stern rigorism in determining the results of poetic education; they have no desire to straightforwardly impose their opinion: poetry should correct us by amusing us. Explaining D. Barkley's plan in Argenida, Trediakovsky noted; The author had this intention, so that the reader’s heart, which nowhere in this work rests on firmness, would, if possible, be amused by pleasantries and sweets. The art of this author lies in the fact that he was able to lure readers to his book so that they use it not as something that sternly instructs, but as if it amuses them with a game. But the entertaining side does not exist without the didactic side: All writers in general should not try to do anything else in their writings except to bring benefit, or to please the reader, or to provide instruction for honest and virtuous conduct in life. And Sumarokov put the poet’s achievement of a moral goal in the first place, although he also did not equate aesthetic perfection with moral edification: And I think that my comedies can make no less adjustments than they can bring amusement and laughter. The moralistic attitude of the work does not remove the question of entertainment; benefit and pleasure are combined out of necessity. In the Word on Opening 17

20 of the Academy of Arts Sumarokov makes the following comparison in this regard: Often the eyes of grazing animals are attracted by more flower-bearing meadows than by lush meadows. And if the meadows are both flower-bearing and fat, don’t they have a special power of attraction? . One of the early Russian philosophers G. N. Teplov actively developed this issue in his article Discourse on the beginning of poetry. He proposed to separate the sciences and the arts on the basis that the former address themselves directly to benefit, and the latter sometimes to benefit, sometimes to the sole amusement or sophistication of our mind, which then always serves as a guide to the knowledge of other things. Sharing the doctrine of poetry as a specific type of eloquence, Teplov sees in it a means that can act in human hearts more than any other action. For a long time, eloquence had the task of softening tyrants, inducing society to war and battle, quenching passions, and arousing the fire of love with speech. It was in these tasks that eloquence began to come closer to poetry. At first, being unregulated, poetry set as its main goal the satisfaction of passions, and then began to serve the implementation of useful goals. The rules developed by the sages contributed to the process of transforming poetry from a means of expressing passions into a serious matter of national importance. The goals of civic education began to determine its meaning and purpose. The pleasant in poetry became a means of expressing its usefulness: Poetry had a good reason to take root when it contained something so useful with pleasantness, and the useful received a fair chance when it was depicted in such a pleasant style. Moral edification should not be straightforward: the more perfection there is in a work, the more it serves the rules in correcting the morals of the people, since readers receive benefit and amusement, being attracted to fun and amusements insensitively. Like Trediakovsky, Teplov sees the social function of ancient literature in its usefulness for the formation of public opinion. Russian classicists did not insist on direct expression of the moralizing tendency; in their opinion, it should be present in the artistic image itself, but poetry does not have a goal in itself, its task is to develop and prescribe certain moral norms. The poet had a double task: to exercise political influence in relation to the whole society, and in relation to an individual to give pleasure and benefit. This was most clearly reflected in the main conflict of classicist drama in the form of a sharp opposition between public duty and personal passions. 18

21 However, Russian classicists did not clearly understand the essence of the contradictions between the individual and absolutist statehood, which was explained by the insufficient degree of maturity of the social conflicts of the era. Enlightened absolutism was perceived by them as the main condition for harmony in the relationship between the individual and society, and therefore the actual social dependence of the classicist writer on state protectionism in the field of culture did not appear in the form of a limitation of the writer’s individual capabilities. Most theorists of Russian classicism shared a civic-moralistic point of view on art, which led them to an abstract awareness of human characters. 6 What do the reasoning and conclusions of Russian theorists look like against the background of the European theory of poetry? The question of what is pleasant and useful in poetry was raised in ancient times. Horace in his Epistle to the Piso gave a clear answer to this: Poets strive to bring either benefit or pleasure, or to say what is both pleasant and useful in life, therefore the one who mixes the useful with the pleasant, and also entertains, will receive general approval. and teaching the reader. During the Renaissance, the need to justify the independent significance of poetry led theorists to actively defend the thesis about the benefits of poetry, with the help of which humanists tried to neutralize attacks from the scholastics, emphasizing that it was the didactic side of poetry that connected it with the needs of life: poetry teaches people to highly value virtue and condemn vices. Renaissance theorists insisted that a poet must know many sciences and have a university education. It was during this era that the Aristotelian concept of catharsis was given an exclusively moralistic meaning. The pedagogical-moralistic concept of creativity dominates in Scaliger: the poet’s goal is to teach by delighting. The moralistic goal of poetry comes first, and the pleasure derived from poetry is only a means for this. Of the Italian theorists, only Robortello and Castelvetro defend the independence of pleasure from instruction: entertainment in itself is a source of benefit. French classicists saw the main task of the poet to please his readers. The secret of success is to captivate the viewer with an excited verse, recommends Boileau. In the preface to the first edition of the fables, J. Lafontaine stated: The main and, perhaps, the only rule is that 19

22 so that the readers like the essay. Racine also considers this principle fundamental to the tragedy genre: The main rule is to please and touch, all others are developed only in order to fulfill it. In the words of Dorant from the 6th phenomenon of Moliere's comedy Critique of the School of Wives, the voice of the author is heard: The most important rule is to please. Reasonable pleasure is not the enemy, but the instrument of virtue. A noticeable strengthening of moralizing tendencies occurs in the literary and aesthetic theories of the 18th century. Voltaire, Diderot, Jaucourt, Marmontel, La Harpe 7 believe that all types of art serve the exclusively useful purpose of making people morally purer and nobler. In carrying out this task, the artist consciously represents virtue as pleasant and vice as disgusting. Each person has a special type of perception for this purpose, to see in the way that his ability to perceive the beautiful as beautiful and the ugly as ugly is pre-organized by nature. 7 Russian classicists, without going to the extremes of didacticism or hedonism, believed that their main task was to determine the political role of poetry. Lomonosov emphasized the social meaning of creativity, connected it with political good and benefit, saw in the poet a political preacher, whose calling was to be the memory of Russian state glory, Sumarokov widely developed the theme of moral virtue, closely connecting it with politics and condemning its interpretation by sentimentalists. Teplov and Trediakovsky traced the change in the social role of poetry in different periods of its development. Trediakovsky noted the narrowing of the educational possibilities of poetry in the present. The general view of the role of the poet was summed up by the author's discussion on the qualities of a poet: It is not enough that a poet wants to please when he cannot teach anything. The poet is at the same time a moralist and a political mentor; this thesis, according to the classicists, is confirmed both by the entire history of the development of poetry and by the very fact of its emergence in certain social conditions. The writer's moralistic task became his social task. According to the views of Russian classicists, the art of words recreates a rational artistic world, in which the determining principle is the ethical will of the author, the possibilities of which are limitless. The basis of an optimistic view of the socially transformative value of poetry rested on three main premises. Firstly, on the idea of ​​the omnipotence of nature, the classicists shared Leibniz’s opinion that people 7 In Germany Leibniz, Gottsched, Baumgarten, Sulzer; in Italy Gravina, Muratori; in England J. Dennis, A. Pop. 20

S. E. Lyubimov, T. I. Mitsuk THE PROBLEM OF MAN AND FREE WILL IN TOLSTOY'S ETHICS The Christian religion had a significant influence on the formation of Tolstoy's views. At first Tolstoy completely shared it,

Work program of Ivanova N.B. Dudko S.A. for the training course "Literature" 9a, b, c class basic level 2013-2014 academic year Explanatory note This work program for grade 9 is compiled on

The historical and literary process of ILP is a set of generally significant phenomena in literature over time and under the influence of historical events. The development of the literary process is determined by the following artistic

Total hours 102. Per week 3. Abstract to the work program on literature grades 10-11 (FC GOS) (basic level) Goals and objectives of the program Study of literature at the basic level of secondary (complete) general education

Topic 1.1. Human nature, innate and acquired qualities. Lesson topic: The problem of the cognizability of the world. Plan 1. The concept of truth, its criteria. 2. Types of human knowledge. Worldview. Types of worldview.

State budgetary educational institution secondary school 392 with in-depth study of the French language, Kirovsky district of St. Petersburg Accepted “Approved” by the Pedagogical

Abstract to the work program in literature, grade 10. This program is based on the Federal Basic Curriculum for Educational Institutions Russian Federation, which provides

Abstract to the work program on literature in grades 6-9 of MBOU Secondary School 56 for the 2014-2015 academic year. The work program is compiled in accordance with the State Educational Standards FC, an approximate program of basic general education in

Abstract to the work program in literature, grade 10 (profile level) This work program in literature for grade 10 is compiled on the basis of the federal component of the State Standard

Requirements for the level of student preparation Students must know and be able to: understand the main problems of social life and the laws of the historical and literary process of a particular period; know the basics

Ivan Pavlovich Voitsekhovich Thoughts and remarks related to the fine arts Abstract “Man’s curiosity to know the objects surrounding him gave birth to the sciences, and the desire to explain his feelings to others

I. A. KRYAZHIMSKAYA ABOUT THE WORK OF THE GROUP FOR STUDYING RUSSIAN LITERATURE OF THE 18TH CENTURY IN 1957-1958 with reports and messages at the meetings of the 18th century Group, in addition to scientists from Leningrad, Moscow, Tartu, Gomel,

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation FEDERAL STATE BUDGET EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION “SARATOV NATIONAL RESEARCH STATE UNIVERSITY”

Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov Biography An outstanding Russian scientist, poet, creator of the still dominant form of poetry in the Russian language, the first Russian professor was born on November 19 (November 8 according to the old

MUNICIPAL BUDGETARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF THE CITY DISTRICT OF TOGLIATTI "SCHOOL 11" Order 130 dated 06/14/2016 The program was adopted on the basis of the decision of the methodological association of Russian teachers

Work program for history in high school (basic level). The study of history at the basic level of secondary (complete) general education is aimed at achieving the following goals: - education of citizenship,

Abstract to the work program for literature grades 5-9 (FSES) The work program for the subject "Literature" is compiled on the basis of the Federal State Educational Standard of Basic General

Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "Russian State Specialized Academy of Arts" I approve

Final state certification in the master's degree area of ​​Philology: State exam in Russian literature 1. The literary and aesthetic heritage of the West in discussions of “Westerners” and “Slavophiles”.

Solodchik Olga 7-Zh Russian literature of the 18th century has come a long way in its development: from classicism to sentimentalism, from the ideal of an enlightened monarch to the intimate experiences of a person. Russian classicism

Minerals in a new artistic context admires the triumphant singing of a bullfinch in freedom. Bullfinch is a winter bird. However, in Mineralov’s poem the motifs of spring and summer are also associated with it, i.e.

E. A. Arapova MORAL PHILOSOPHY OF M. M. BAKHTIN IN THE LIGHT OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL TURN IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BEGINNING OF THE XX CENTURY Thought that thinks through the truth of being in the sense of the original element of man as an existent

Abstract to the work program in literature Grade 10-11 Regulatory and methodological materials Implemented teaching materials Goals and objectives of studying the subject Implementation period Place of the subject in curriculum Level requirements

Essay Essay experience, trial, attempt, sketch, essay Features of an essay 1. The presence of a specific topic or question. 2. The personal nature of the perception of the problem and its understanding. 3. Small volume. 4. Free composition

Municipal autonomous educational institution "Kabanskaya secondary school" "Agreed" "Agreed" "Approved" Head of the Moscow Region Deputy. Director for HR Director / / / Full name Full name

L.P. CHURINA. ABOUT WAYS OF DETERMINING THE NATURE OF AESTHETIC TASTE The problem of educating aesthetic taste is one of the most practically significant in today's aesthetic and pedagogical science. Natural

IX grade (53 hours per year, of which 1 hour is for writing an essay) Tsareva, O. I. Russian literature: a textbook for the 9th grade of educational institutions with Belarusian and Russian languages ​​of instruction / O.

Russian literature of the 19th century in the context of world literature (lecture) Svyatova E.N., teacher of Russian language and literature, GBOU gymnasium 343, St. Petersburg Literary trends of the late XVIII-early XIX

Municipal budgetary educational institution Secondary school 18 Moscow region Khimki APPROVED BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR DATED 09/01/2017 101-O AGREED ON PEDAGOGICAL

Part I. Culture as a subject of scientific research Chapter 1. Formation of ideas about culture 1.1. origin and purpose of the term “culture” In everyday speech, “culture” is a well-known

A. A. Zarubina Student Siberian-American Faculty of Management Baikal International Business School Irkutsk State University UNITY OF LOGICAL AND HISTORICAL AS A METHOD OF ECONOMIC

Explanatory note Preparation for an essay, its writing, assessment by the teacher, self-esteem by the student occupy one of the most important places in the education system. this work accompanies the analysis of artistic

Compiled by: candidate of historical sciences, teacher of GBPOU MGOK Belevtsova Victoria Olegovna OGSE 01 Fundamentals of philosophy LECTURE 1 Basic concepts and subject of philosophy QUESTIONS 1. What is philosophy. 2. Philosophy as a science. 3.

Non-state general education autonomous non-profit organization“PAVLOVSKAYA GYMNASIUM” I APPROVED Order 217-ADM dated August 31, 2017 WORK PROGRAM for the elective course “TEACHING ESSAYS”

Abstract to the work program for the subject "Literature" 11th grade 1. The role of discipline The subject "Literature" plays an important role in the educational process, develops written and oral communication skills, helps

UDC 17.024 A.V. Egorov Irkutsk State Transport University THE PROBLEM OF CONSCIENCE IN THE ETHICS OF I. KANT The article examines the essence of conscience in the views of I. Kant. Immanuel Kant's great merit lies in

Order dated August 29, 2016 143 Work program Social studies 6th grade for the 2016-2017 academic year Kholina L.I. Highest qualification category Skopin, 2016 1 Personal, meta-subject and subject

Russian literature VIII grade (53 hours per year, of which 6 hours for extracurricular reading) Russian literature: textbook. allowance for 8th grade. general education institutions with Belarusian and Russian language training / T.F. Mushinskaya,

E.V. ILYENKOV (MOSCOW), T. DAUTOV, A. ISKAKOV (ALMA-ATA) Study of dialectics and logic of knowledge. Zh. Abdildin and others. Problems of logic and dialectics of knowledge. Academy of Sciences of the KazSSR. Alma-Ata, 1963. 385 p. *Peer reviewed

TEST in the discipline “Fundamentals of Philosophy” (questions and tests) Questions for the test in the discipline “Fundamentals of Philosophy” 1. What is a worldview, what are the specifics of the main types of worldview? 2. Name the main ones

Abstract to the work program of the academic subject “Literature”. Grade 6 The work program of the academic subject “Literature” meets the requirements of the State Educational Standard of Basic Education and Secondary (complete)

Allegory is an allegory, when another concept is hidden under a specific image of an object, person, or phenomenon. Alliteration is the repetition of homogeneous consonant sounds, giving the literary text a special

Kovaleva T.V. LITERARY TRANSLATION AND THE PERSONALITY OF THE TRANSLATOR Literary translation is a type of literary creativity, during which a work existing in one language is recreated in another.

The message is one of the most ancient literary genres. It first appeared in the works of ancient poets: Horace, Ovid, Catullus. The heyday of the message genre was the era of classicism of the 17th and 18th centuries. In France

An essay on the topic of the artistic originality of the novel The Quiet Don The world-recognized novel The Quiet Don is an epic, and its (more than 700) determine the genre originality of Sholokhov's novel. Not seeing yet

TEST ASSESSMENT SCHEME 1 Real profile Task A (40 points) Nr Task Answer option Evaluation criteria Total number of points 1. Replace the phrase “ artistic sense» others, loved ones

EXPLANATORY NOTE to the work program on literature for grades 7-9. The work program was developed on the basis of the Federal component of the State Standard of Basic General Education in Literature,

Individual style of research activity and the student in the system of teacher intelligence development. The relevance of this topic is due to the updating of the content of education, the need of schools for intellectual

Municipal budgetary educational institution "Bolsheusinsk secondary school" Work program on literature Grade 9 Teacher Balabanova E.I. Highest qualification category 2017

CONSCIOUSNESS is the ability of the human brain to perceive, comprehend and actively transform the surrounding reality. SELF-AWARENESS - a person’s awareness of his body, his thoughts and feelings, his position

Municipal budgetary educational institution "Gymnasium" Recommended by: Methodological Association of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature Minutes dated "30" 08.2016 1 Approved: by order of the MBOU "Gymnasium"

"A. A. SMIRNOV LITERARY THEORY OF RUSSIAN CLASSICISM Moscow Contents Preface Introduction 2–6 Chapter 1. Prerequisites for the theory of classicism in Russia...”

-- [ Page 1 ] --

A. A. SMIRNOV

LITERARY

RUSSIAN

CLASSICISM

Preface

Introduction 2–6

Chapter 1. Prerequisites for the theory of classicism in Russia 6–11

Chapter 2. Classicism on the social significance of poetry 11–22

Chapter 3. Classicism on the specifics of poetic creativity 22–57

Chapter 4. Classicism on the cognitive significance of art 57–77 poetry Chapter 5 The category of genre in the theoretical system of classicism 77–127 Chapter 6 Problems of poetic style in the theory of Russian classicism 127–142 Chapter 7.

The fate of the literary theory of classicism at the turn of 142–169 of the 18th–19th centuries.

Conclusion 170–200 References 201–207 Bibliography 208–226

PREFACE

The question of the literary theory of Russian classicism is included in the current program on the history of Russian literature for philological departments of universities.

In existing textbooks intended for junior students, the theory of Russian classicism is presented extremely briefly, reflecting the state of that stage of its scientific research, which was characteristic of the 40s and 50s.

In constructing the work, the author follows the internal logic of those ideas and concepts that arose in the theoretical self-awareness of Russian writers of the 18th century. First, the origins of the theory of classicism in the poetics of F. Prokopovich are traced. The central place is occupied by the analysis of the views of Lomonosov, Trediakovsky and Sumarokov on the role of poetry in public and state life. Two chapters of the manual are devoted to the consideration of problems of the specifics of poetic activity (the problem of “imitation of nature”, the theory of fiction, the doctrine of verisimilitude) and the cognitive significance of creativity (the role of “mind” and “feelings” in cognition, the relationship between natural talent, talent and “rules”, traditions ) in theoretical manifestos and declarations of Russian classicists. Special chapters reveal the uniqueness of the categories of genre (criteria of “value”, grounds for their differentiation) and style (the relationship between linguistic norms and speech use, criteria of perfection). The final chapter is an overview of the general trends in the development of the theory of classicism at the turn of the 18th–19th centuries.

INTRODUCTION The subject of this work is the literary theory of Russian classicism, the leading movement in the literature of the 18th century. The theoretical self-awareness of the writers of that time, their understanding of their own creative principles organically included both a general philosophical justification for the specifics of literature and narrow stylistic problems.

The ideas and principles of rhetoric, criticism, stylistics, poetics, and the history of verbal art coexisted in close unity. In attempts to identify the specifics of literary and artistic creativity, writers and critics of the era of classicism consistently did not distinguish between literary theory and aesthetics. The distinction between the aesthetic and the logical remained in the 18th century. quantitative - according to the degree of clarity of cognition.

Isolating the literary and theoretical principles of creativity and the corresponding type of artistic thinking as a subject of special research is legitimate.

For many years, both the theory and history of literary creativity existed within the framework of literary programs, which was especially clearly manifested in the Russian literary process of the 18th century. Poetry as an art is guided by special artistic principles, which, as they are realized, receive their formulation in author's manifestos and theoretical declarations, various kinds of recommendations regulating the work of poets.

The process of formation of literary movements is directly related to the theoretical formulation of their aesthetic program. In the system of classicism, literary theory acquired a normative character: the theoretical justification of creativity was a necessary prerequisite for poetic practice. A literary work was considered a type of “scientific” creativity that claimed universal significance and could not be limited to the expression of individual quests.

Consideration of the literary theory of Russian classicism as a special system of views on the nature, essence and tasks of poetry requires clarification not only of the content of individual problems, but also of their genesis. In this regard, many aspects of the literary theory of Russian classicism can be correctly understood against the background of similar phenomena of the European literary process. Since literary trends exist as factors of international development, it is necessary to take into account the interaction of various national poetic theories.

The work will analyze such important monuments of the literary and aesthetic thought of Russian classicism as “Rhetoric” by Lomonosov, his “Preface on the benefits of church books in the Russian language”, “Word of thanks for the consecration of the Academy of Arts”, “On the current state of verbal sciences in Russia” . Of Trediakovsky’s works, the most important for our topic are his prefaces to Barkley’s “Argenide” and “Tilemakhida”, as well as the articles “Opinion on the beginning of poetry and poetry in general”, “Letter to a friend about the current benefit of citizenship from poetry”, “Letter, which contains a discussion about the poem...”, “About the ancient, middle and new Russian poem”, “A discussion about comedy in general”, “A discussion about the ode in general”, “A speech about the purity of the Russian language”. Sumarokov’s theoretical thought received the most clear expression in the articles “On unnaturalness”, “To the “nonsensical rhyme makers”, “To typographic typesetters”, “Letter on reading novels”, “On the poetry of the Kamchadals”, “Criticism on an ode”, “Response to criticism ”, “On the extermination of foreign words from the Russian language”, “Opinion in a dream about French tragedies”, “Word at the opening of the Academy of Arts” and especially in his epistles about poetry and the Russian language. Essential material for understanding the literary theory of Russian classicism is contained in the anonymously published article “On the qualities of a poet, reasoning” in the magazine “Monthly Works” 1.

There is often no coincidence between the form that poetic theory takes as presented by the author and its actual content in the system, so the task of the work is not so much to describe the views of individual representatives of Russian classicism, but to reconstruct the system of ideas as a whole.

In pre-revolutionary literary criticism, the question of a special study of the literary theory of Russian classicism as a system was not raised. A negative attitude towards the national uniqueness of Russian classicism manifested itself in the critical debates of the Romantic era and was reflected in the concepts of the authors of university courses in the 19th and early 20th centuries. (A. N. Pypin, E. V. Petukhov, A. S. Arkhangelsky, A. M. Loboda) and textbooks for gymnasiums (P. V. Smirnovsky, V. F. Savodnik), who persistently pursued the idea of ​​unoriginal character Russian “pseudoclassicism”, “false classicism”.

The revision of the thesis about the imitation of Russian classicism began in the works of Soviet literary scholars of the 20s. In a special course on the history of Russian classicism, P. N. Sakulin stated: “We have the right to talk about Russian classicism, while remaining

There are different opinions regarding the attribution of this work to Lomonosov.

L. B. Modzalevsky in his doctoral dissertation names G. N. Teplov as the alleged author.

on the basis of only theoretical principles 2 Fundamental significance for the entire Soviet science of literature of the 18th century. had the works of G. A. Gukovsky, in which he deeply explored the national characteristics of Russian classicism. The problem of the specific features of the literary theories of Lomonosov, Trediakovsky and Sumarokov was posed in the works of G. A. Gukovsky and P. N. Berkov in the 30s.

In the works of D. D. Blagoy, G. N. Pospelov, A. N. Sokolov of the 40–50s, the study of the national originality of Russian classicism was deepened and expanded. In close connection with the development of the history of Russian criticism, L. I. Kulakova analyzed the main stages in the development of aesthetic teachings in Russia in the 18th century. In the 60s, articles by G. A. Gukovsky from the 40s were posthumously published, in which he consistently characterizes Russian classicism as a unique type of aesthetic thinking and substantiates the need for a systematic study of the literary-critical and literary-aesthetic views of Lomonosov, Trediakovsky and Sumarokov.

Considering controversial and unexplored problems of the literary process of the 18th century. in domestic and foreign science, P. N. Berkov came to the conclusion that it was inappropriate to study literature “according to directions” and proposed to remove even the term “classicism” itself. G. P. Makogonenko, without denying the progressive nature of classicism in Russia, believes that the main content of the historical and literary process of the 18th century. in Russia is the development of educational realism. A. A. Morozov, considering the Baroque the leading direction in literature, attributes many writers of the 18th century to it. 3 Most researchers are in favor of an in-depth study of Russian classicism.

According to K.V. Pigarev, in the characterization of the national uniqueness of Russian classicism, much remains only approximately outlined. In an essay on the historiography of Russian literature of the 18th century. P. N. Berkov speaks of the need to “pay more attention to the analysis of the theoretical, aesthetic views of Russian writers of the 18th century.” . The authors of the general work on the history of Russian literary criticism, “The Emergence of the Russian Science of Literature” (71), point out that the problem of connections between the theory of Russian classicism and the initial stage of the emergence of the Russian science of literature is undeveloped.

In a detailed and in-depth study by G.V. Moskvicheva, dedicated to the genre system of Russian classicism, it is noted that “the problem of Russian classicism, Here and below, the first number in brackets indicates the serial number under which the source is placed in the list of references, and the second - the page of the cited work ; The Roman numeral indicates the volume.

For a general summary of opinions on this issue, see the book: Chernov I. A. From lectures on theoretical literary criticism. Vol. 1, - Baroque, Tartu, 1976.

despite the significant achievements of modern science, and currently does not seem to be resolved.” The author of the newest textbook on Russian literature of the 18th century points out the insufficient development of aesthetic and literary concepts associated with the study of classicism. Yu.I. Minerals and.

The literary and theoretical views of representatives of Russian classicism have not yet been sufficiently studied; among modern scientists there is no unity of opinion on the question of what determined the stability and integrity of the literary doctrine of Russian classicism; the content of the theoretical problems of this literary movement is incompletely defined; the goals and objectives that posed by our theorists, and, finally, the degree of originality and the degree of traditionalism of their literary views remains unclear.

We are faced with the task of explaining the connection and interrelation of the basic concepts and categories with which the classicists operated, and answering the question of what are the main features of the type of thinking that manifested itself in the leading principles of their literary program. We strive to show what brought Russian classicists together and constituted a single platform for this literary movement, revealing the literary theory of Russian classicism as a consistent and complete system. It seems that the development of a theory of Russian classicism at the system level is a necessary methodological basis for the modern stage of its study.

The study of any system involves identifying its main components, establishing stable mutual connections and relationships between them, and identifying system-forming, leading principles. It is important for us to focus on the internal logic and stable patterns of literary and theoretical thought of Russian classicists. Distraction from the specifics of particular problems does not mean going beyond the specific texts presenting literary theory. The main task is to determine the new specific classicistic content of the literary theory of Lomonosov, Trediakovsky and Sumarokov.

In the concepts and terms of the literary theory of classicism, a historically specific type of perception of works of poetic art is recorded. And in order to correctly grasp its specificity, it is necessary to restore the corresponding features of the process of theoretical understanding of the facts of literary creativity.

We should immediately point out the following: the theoretical poetics of the 18th century, of course, could not fully explain everything that existed in the literary practice of the writers of the 18th century itself, the analysis of which remains beyond the scope of this work.

BACKGROUND OF THE THEORY OF CLASSICISM

The prerequisites for classicism on Russian soil appeared at the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries. It was at the turn of the XVII–XVIII centuries. in “school” poetics, some basic problems of the future literary theory of Russian classicism were outlined.

The result of the literary views of representatives of “school” poetics was the treatise by F.

Prokopovich “On Poetic Art”, written in 1705, and published in Latin in 1786. The historical and literary significance of this work is that it contains a number of provisions that precede the literary theory of Russian classicism. The focus on systematizing previous works is combined in F.

Prokopovich with a persistent desire to “contribute to science”, “to add something to so many works of rich talents”4.

F. Prokopovich sees the main subject of poetry in the “depiction of human actions through poetic speech,” he distinguishes poetry from the sphere of general rhetoric and objects to Cicero regarding the differences in the tasks of the poet and the speaker. He further notes that “human feeling in the form of love was the first creator of poetry”; having arisen “in the cradle of nature itself,” poetry is based on sensual fury. This distinctly Renaissance view leads him to prove the moral benefits of poetry and the legitimacy of its existence as a special type of creativity. The humanistic orientation is also noticeable in the choice of authorities. If neo-Latin authors (J. Pontan, A. Donat, J. Masen, G. Foss, to whom F. Prokopovich often refers) substantiated their conclusions with references to Christian scholarship, then Prokopovich directly turns to ancient authors who are well known to him from the time stay in Rome, when he had the opportunity to read the texts of ancient authors, not spoiled by the editing of the Jesuits.

In the most detail, he examines the question of the social significance of poetry: “The very subject with which poetry is usually concerned gives it enormous importance and value,” since it glorifies great people and transmits the memory of them to posterity. By eradicating vices and promoting the development of social virtues, poetry inspires people to military and civil exploits; philosophy itself is “either born or nurtured by poetry.”

Poetry successfully performs cognitive and educational functions, according to Prokopovich, only thanks to the relationship between benefit and pleasure:

“A poem that delights but does not bring benefit is empty and like a child’s rattle. That which strives to be useful without pleasure is unlikely to be useful.” He severely condemns Catullus and Ovid for their departure from “morality” and explains:

“If you want to understand what true pleasure is, call this pleasure healthy and not contagious.” He considers the unity of benefit and entertainment to be an indispensable condition for the social impact of poetry.

At the center of F. Prokopovich’s theoretical treatise are the problems of imitation and fiction. He separates imitation of nature from imitation of literary models. In the latter, he traditionally sees one of the ways to improve mastery, emphasizing the role of tradition, previous experience, the assimilation of which is active in poetry: “Thinking, having mastered the writer’s style, turns into his thinking and sometimes creates works similar to his with greater ease.” ;

“imitation consists in some coincidence of our thinking with the thinking of some exemplary author, so that even though we did not take anything from him and did not transfer it into our work, it would seem as if it were his work, and not ours: to such an extent degree may be similar style!”. F. Prokopovich develops the ideas of Ronsard and Du Bellay about creative borrowing from ancient authors: “You can compose something according to the model of Virgil, or develop it in the same way, or even borrow something from him. If a borrowing is discovered, then let it turn out to be more beautiful and better from the imitator than from the author himself.”

In the problem of imitation of nature, F. Prokopovich essentially comes very close to the classicist understanding of the specifics of poetry, its specific uniqueness.

The origins of the theory of imitation on Russian soil can be traced to the poetics of the turn of the 17th-18th centuries. 5 The authors of this poetics did not have a unified view on the problems of imitation and fiction: poetry was conceptualized either as a science that expresses in poetic form the imitation of people’s actions, or as the art of depicting fictional acts. All quotations in the text are given only from the indicated 1961 edition.

Before this period, such questions did not arise in Russian literature. See: Berkov P. N. Essay on the development of Russian literary terminology before the beginning of the 19th century. //Izv. USSR Academy of Sciences, ser. language and lit-ry, 1964, vol. 23, people in verse, and fiction came closer to imitation of the truth of a separate fact.

“School” poetics freely and approximately conveyed Aristotle in the interpretation of neo-Latin theorists of the 16th-17th centuries. J. Pontana, J. Masona, A. Donata, G. Fossa and others.

Fiction was identified with imitation, sometimes with invention. Imitation of models and imitation of nature are distinguished vaguely and formally. The understanding of fiction as fiction led to the increased cultivation of “curious” verse, which was given a significant place in the applied part of poetics; in this one can see the influence of the Polish-German baroque traditions. Fiction is understood as a means to create a fascinating plot; Without revealing the truth of the real, it loses its cognitive meaning and comes closer to the concept of the “miraculous.”

F. Prokopovich reveals a holistic understanding of the problems of fiction and imitation: he develops the idea of ​​creative imitation by comparing history and poetry, poetry and philosophy, poetry and rhetoric. He considers the poetic form to be an insignificant sign of the poetic and cites Aristotle’s remark that if Empedocles and Herodotus had written their works in verse, they could not be called poets. F. Prokopovich sees the creative principle of poetry in “imitation of human actions through invention,” insisting on the idea that it is more correct to call a poet “creator,” “writer,” or “imitator,” since he “invents various experiences of the soul in the characters.” Therefore, “no matter how many poems you write, they will all remain nothing more than poems, and it will be unfair to call them poetry.” Deprived of “the freedom to invent the plausible,” history, “even written in verse,” will remain history, not poetry.

Imitation is a specific aspect of poetic creativity, the main means of which is fiction, which contributes to the creation of an artistic image as a unity of the general and the individual. Already in the first book, “On Poetic Art,” F. Prokopovich brings together the concepts of invention and imitation: “To invent, or to depict, means to imitate the thing whose photograph or likeness is depicted.”

Historical writing differs from poetic writing in that poetry “glorifies the fictitious,” reproducing things “through representation.” The main difference between a historian and a poet is that “the historian tells about the actual event, how it happened; for the poet, either the entire story is fictitious, or even if he describes the true story, he talks about it not as it happened in reality, but as it could or should have happened.” It is fiction that carries out the function of generalization in a poetic work and determines the creative nature of activity c. 3.

poet. But the sphere of fiction is not limitless: its object can only be natural phenomena, excluding fantasy. The author's fiction is limited within the limits of the work - the poet must comply with the requirements of plausibility, achieve persuasiveness: the poet “invents the plausible” even when there are cases that “did not occur in reality”, and one should not add to them “nothing extraordinary or beyond the bounds of probability” "

According to Prokopovich, “by poetic invention, or imitation, one should understand not only the interweaving of plots, but also all the methods of description by which human actions, even if genuine, are nevertheless depicted believably.” To achieve “the verisimilitude that makes a narrative worthy of trust” is possible provided that “we will mainly avoid three shortcomings: inconsistency, impossibility and contradiction.” The unnatural, unreasonable and uncharacteristic were excluded from the sphere of art. Poetic fiction can be of two types: fiction of the event itself and fiction of the way in which this event occurred. In both cases, the tasks of the poet differ from the tasks of the historian: the first type of fiction includes the depiction of events that never happened in reality and therefore did not become facts of historical reality, in the second type - a true event using the “fiction” of how it happened, changes significantly and appears only as possible.

Fiction of the first type is divided into seemingly plausible and seemingly incredible, implausible. F. Prokopovich suggests using only the first type of fiction.

Although F. Prokopovich generally follows the late Renaissance theory of poetry, it is important to note in his theory something new that foreshadows the signs of classicism - the desire to bring together fiction and imitation and, on this basis, to reveal the specificity of poetry as an art.

If the comparison of poetry and history should reveal the specificity of art in relation to the individual, then the comparison of the poet and philosopher - in relation to the general:

“Poetry also diverges from philosophy, because the philosopher examines the general in general and does not limit it to any particularities,” while the poet represents the general in the form of “special actions.” F. Prokopovich concludes: “Poetry is different from philosophy and history and somehow touches them as if with both hands.” Here he outlines, in essence, a classicist understanding of the way of typifying human characters: some human actions “seem arbitrary,” “others are considered inevitable due to natural properties.” Referring to Aristotle, he calls for “common virtues and vices to be noted in certain individuals.” So, for example, when depicting a ruler, it is necessary to reproduce only those aspects of his character that are inherent in him not as a private person, but as a ruler.

Each character must appear before the reader in a specific field of activity, while the private properties and habits of a particular person are excluded when creating the image: “If a poet wants to sing the praises of a brave commander, he does not inquisitively examine how he fought the war, but considers in what way he should any brave commander would wage war, and this method is attributed to his hero.” Loyalty to “nature” should not contradict the social status of the person depicted: this or that character is characterized “in terms of social duties.” The superiority of poetry over history lies in the generalizing aspect of the artistic image.

The requirement of verisimilitude in relation to character is called “decorum”. 6 This term means that when depicting any character, the author should choose only what is decent and appropriate to the social status of a given person: the poet should “carefully consider what suits such and such a person, time, place and what suits this or that person, i.e. his facial expression, gait, appearance, attire, various body movements and gestures.” F. Prokopovich is outraged by any violation of this rule. He sharply attacks the essay of a certain Canon “On the Bosnian Mines,” where the king’s daughter begs her father to give her salt mines. Bizarre characters and situations in Baroque works evoked a negative attitude from him.

F. Prokopovich adhered to the tradition of Aristotle on the issue of the relationship between art and reality (in terms of artistic knowledge), but in the interpretation of reality itself as a philosophical category, he significantly diverged from him. If for Aristotle a sufficient basis for recognizing the fact of reality was its logical consistency, then for F. Prokopovich the reality of reality should be independent of the will of the poet.

An appeal to ancient poetics and the humanistic theories of the Renaissance, the desire to go beyond the creative practice of the Baroque, attempts to give a holistic and consistent answer to the question of the specifics of poetry - all this characterizes F. Prokopovich as a unique theorist in the history of Russian poetic thought.

F. Prokopovich borrows the concept of decorum from J. Vida, who demanded that certain proportions be observed when depicting a character, indicating the age, gender, social rank and nationality of the hero; Cicero and Quintilian demanded the same from the rhetorician.

CLASSICISM ABOUT THE SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF POETRY

The establishment of new ideas in the Peter the Great era, which reflected national interests and therefore had progressive significance, found its direct expression in the art of classicism. Writers are realizing their creative individuality and their tasks in a fundamentally new way.

Classicism freed the world of the individual from many traditions and conventions of frozen scholasticism, revealing new aspects of human nature, revealing the contradiction between the church’s idea of ​​​​the depravity of man and the humanistic thought about the natural character of man’s good and free will. In the era of classicism, it is not the dogma of Christian teaching, but the truth of reason, that is, the truth known by the human mind, that determines the principles of depicting a person.

Classicists sought to find a humanistic justification for the goals and purpose of poetry, as opposed to the patristic and medieval opinion that poetry represents the untrue and fictitious. Within the framework of the so-called theory of the “seven liberal arts” of the Middle Ages, poetry was interpreted only as versified rhetoric. The main argument of humanists in favor of the existence of poetry is its necessity for virtue. Poetry is put at the service of civil and national-patriotic goals. Thanks to its ability to entertain, it teaches virtue with greater effect than philosophy.

The emergence of the concept of poetic individuality in Russian literature dates back to the era of classicism. This is the result of a new socio-economic and political situation - the people of the Middle Ages, with their transcendentally oriented worldview and economic dependence on the feudal lord, could not solve such a problem.

The central place in the poetics of Russian classicism was occupied by the question of the social significance of poetry. Advanced Russian poets and critics of the 18th century. persistently asserted the socially useful role of art, poetry was for them a means of implementing high civic ideals. The rationalistic justification of creativity directly led to the requirement of social benefit; poetry was perceived as a special kind of moralizing philosophy. By its very essence, it is designed to exert a moral influence on a person, contributing to the political and civic education of people. But edifying didacticism, which denies the possibility of expressing the poet’s personal aspirations, is alien to Russian classicism.

Sumarokov in his article “On Criticism” states: “Criticism brings benefit and averts harm, it is necessary for the benefit of the people.” . The author of “On the Qualities of a Reasoning Poet” spoke indignantly about that poet who “would curse the desire to serve the people with science.” Kantemir assessed the meaning of poetic activity from a civic perspective: “Everything I write is written as a citizen,” “almost every line contains some rule useful for the establishment of life.”

Trediakovsky and Sumarokov concentrated their efforts on justifying the moral purpose of poetry, Lomonosov rushed towards the broad horizons of its social tasks. In the remaining unfinished review “On the current state of verbal sciences in Russia,” Lomonosov from the first lines speaks about the benefits and power of the poetic word: “If exercise in verbal sciences is useful for human society, this is evidenced by (the word “European” is crossed out. - A.S. ) ancient and modern peoples.

Having kept silent about so many well-known examples, let us imagine France alone, about which one can rightly doubt whether it was by its power that it attracted other states to its veneration more or by the sciences, especially verbal ones, having purified and embellished its language with the diligence of skilled writers” (13, VII, 581). From the position of strict moralism, Anacreon is condemned in the article “On the qualities of a poet,” who “only with his lyre made a reproach to the muses about vile and supernatural deeds,” speaking so sweetly. This article firmly and adamantly affirms the civic purpose of the poet: “If you know the political rules.” already the position of a citizen, the position of a friend and the position of a master, and all the articles that practice in philosophy teaches, then it is not difficult to decorate the wealth of thoughts with poetry, if only you had a poetic spirit. , since the poet must “serve the people with science”, “publish something educational”, the ending of this article is especially remarkable, in which with the utmost clarity the author formulates in the words of Cicero his social and poetic credo: “I do not see a poet in trifles.” “I want to see him in the society of a citizen, measuring human vices with his finger.”

The poet's public service, patriotic orientation, glorification of the glory of the fatherland - all these are the main criteria for assessing a poetic creation. It is to them that Lomonosov points out in the dedication to “Rhetoric”: “Everyone can quite see the bliss of the human race, since so much depends on the word. How would it be possible for scattered peoples to gather together in communities, to create cities, to build temples and ships, to take up arms against the enemy, and to carry out other necessary work required by the allied forces, if they did not have a way to communicate their thoughts to each other?” The successes of modern literature are significant precisely “in correcting human morals, in describing the glorious deeds of heroes and in many political behaviors.” Russian literature, according to Lomonosov, will bring world glory to his state: “The language that the Russian state rules over a great part of the world, in its power, has natural abundance, beauty and strength, which is not inferior to any European language. And there is no doubt that the Russian word could not be brought to such perfection as we are surprised at in others.”

Lomonosov continues to develop thoughts about the glory and greatness of the Fatherland in the “Preface on the Use of Church Books,” where he speaks with admiration about those who “are zealous for the glorification of the Fatherland in natural language, knowing that with the fall of it, without writers skilled in it, the glory of all will be greatly eclipsed.” people." Many peoples did not preserve in their memory the outstanding events of national history, and “everyone plunged into deep ignorance,” since these events were not reflected in poetry due to the lack of “skilled writers.” The fate of the peoples of Greece and Rome is different, whose world-famous writers conveyed to us their glorious history: “Through the sounds of distant centuries the loud voice of writers is heard preaching the deeds of their heroes,” so that “later descendants, by great antiquity and the distance of places distant, listen to them with the same movement of the heart as their modern fellow-countrymen.”

A great future is opening up for Russian literature: “Our fatherland received such happiness from the enlightenment of Petrov... in Russia, verbal sciences will never allow the Russian word to decline.” Enlightenment and the development of Russian literature are inseparable in achieving their patriotic goal.

Similar problematics are found in Lomonosov’s judgments about the fine arts and architecture. In the “Word of Thanks for the Consecration of the Academy of Arts,” he notes: the sculptural images, “revitalizing metal and stone, represent Russian heroes and heroines in gratitude for their services to the fatherland, as an example and to encourage their descendants to courageous virtue”; the painters “will bring into the present the burden of past Russian deeds to show the ancient glory of our forefathers” in order to “give instruction in matters that extend to the common benefit.”

Thus, Lomonosov approached the assessment of the social significance of literature with broad national criteria that opened up European horizons for it. Russian literature must become as great as ancient literatures, but its benefits will not be confined to a narrow national framework; it will have to eclipse the glory of its neighbors and surpass their achievements. The basis of his confidence was the activity of an enlightened monarch, whose beneficial influence on culture was not questioned by Lomonosov.

Sumarokov also put forward the thesis about the social benefits of art, demanded the direct educational impact of poetry and drama on society, as a result of which a noble and virtuous nobleman would have a harmonizing influence on all public life. Any genre of literature only gains the right to exist when it has certain civil and moral goals and objectives.

Sumarokov wants to justify his position philosophically. Polemicizing with the views of Rousseau in the article “On Superstition and Hypocrisy,” he calls virtue the main science.

Sumarokov is alien to the republican pathos of Rousseau's moralism, since he advocates the subordination of human passions to the supreme power in the person of an ideal noble sovereign, and not for the fullness and freedom of disclosure of human feelings and passions. Sumarokov came close to Western European moralism in that education is the most important means of social progress, but his understanding of the political and ideological content of this progress is sharply different: Sumarokov denies the virtue of sentimentalism and defends the ideals of stoicism, citizenship, and renunciation of personal passions.

Particularly indicative in this regard are his judgments about Beaumarchais’s drama “Eugenie,” in which the condemnation of the inconsistency and inconsistency of the feelings and behavior of the protagonist comes to the fore. Sumarokov conducts this condemnation from the standpoint of stoic morality: “This rake and deceiver, worthy of the gallows for desecrating religion and the noble daughter whom he fraudulently deceived, is deceiving another bride, a noble maiden; goes from idleness to idleness, refuses his bride and, suddenly changing his system again, marries his first wife a second time, but who will vouch for such a vile person; that he won’t marry anyone else tomorrow unless the government and clergy exterminate him. This vile rake is not subject to weakness and delusion, but to dishonesty and crime.”

This attitude towards the hero of Beaumarchais is understandable in the light of the demands that Sumarokov made to the theater. He needs a benefit directly displayed on stage, an active impact on the viewer. Thus, in a letter to Catherine II, he motivates the need to create a permanent theater in Moscow in the following way: “The theater is more needed here than in St. Petersburg, because there are more people and stupidities here. Moscow demands a hundred Moliers, and I am the only one with other matters regarding my exercises.”

G. A. Gukovsky, in the article “Russian Literary Critical Thought in 1730–1750,” connected the tendencies of Sumarokov’s “moralism,” “cult of virtue,” and “emotional soulfulness” with the worldview of the early movements of sentimentalism. This statement requires some clarification.

There is no doubt that moralism is the most important aspect of the ideological content of both sentimentalists and classicists, but its specific content among the writers of these two movements is radically different:

sentimentalism came from subjective-individual, and classicism from civil-political ideals. Thus, in the article “Is a Man Born for Good or for Worse?”, full of hidden polemics with Rousseau, Sumarokov writes: “We are inclined toward virtue not by nature, but by morality and politics. Morals and politics make us, by the measure of enlightening the mind and purifying the hearts, useful to the common good.” Sumarokov insists: “morality without politics is useless, politics without morality is inglorious.” The writer is not only a moralist, but also an active politician; morality contributes to the cause of civic education only when it is inextricably linked with politics. Sumarokov distinguishes painters and sculptors from artisans on the basis that the fine arts, like the art of speech, carry out cognitive and educational tasks. In “The Oration for the Opening of the Academy of Arts,” Sumarokov explains the social benefits of the fine arts this way: “The physical qualities” of great people, which “neither history nor poetry can explain,” “being outlined in our minds,” “revive images of their spiritual qualities and give desire to imitate them, for the subtlest spiritual qualities are hidden in bodily appearances.” The role of such images is very great: they “multiply heroic fire and love for the fatherland”, transmit “enlightenment to posterity in history; the power of contagion in the imitation of glorious deeds, the delight of the curious and the benefit of the world.” Also, “pyitical expressions and their images serve the knowledge of nature, imitation of great deeds, aversion from vices and everything that humanity requires for correction.” The high mission of poetry and its social purpose place strict demands on the poet: he bears full responsibility for the verisimilitude of what is depicted and for the active influence on the reader.

Trediakovsky discussed the issue of the social purpose of poetry even more passionately and interestedly. Since the most ancient times of human history, poetry has “become more famous”: it “prophecies truly from the right, falsely from flatterers;

instructions on virtuous living are taught; laws are prescribed, in a word, everything that is most important and great is included.” The purpose of poetry is “to make people better people.” The idea of ​​utilitarian art is outlined in his preface to the book “A Trip to the Island of Love,” where the reader is invited to enjoy the “wise moral teaching” contained in “almost every line.” In the article “Opinion about the beginning of poetry and poetry in general,” Trediakovsky emphasized that from the moment of its inception, poetry “taught a way of life, showed the path to virtues.”

The idea of ​​the moral benefits of poetry is a cross-cutting theme in most of Trediakovsky’s other arguments. The preface to “Argenida” states that “the author’s intention in composing this great story is to offer perfect instruction on how to act for the sovereign.”

Developing this idea in the preface to Tilemakhida, he deliberately combines the moral and political benefits of poetry. Only in this unity will it be able to fulfill its civic purpose as a means of “teaching the truth” and arousing in us “the hidden spiritual springs into mobility.” Fenelon achieved extraordinary success because he combined “the most perfect politics with the utmost virtue.”

According to Trediakovsky, “the primary goal in an ironic creation is instruction,” he perceived the epic poem as a kind of moralizing philosophy. Let us remember that Lomonosov took the same position in relation to Fenelon’s works, believing that they “contain examples and teachings about politics and good morals.”

A special place among Trediakovsky’s works, which examine the social meaning of poetry, is occupied by his “Letter to a Friend about the Current Benefit of Poetry to Citizenship.” The course of his reasoning can be understood as follows. In ancient times, poetry “described the brave and glorious deeds of great people, instructed in virtue and corrected human morals, proposed philosophical dogmas, laid down rules for obtaining from justice both true well-being and peaceful cohabitation.” In subsequent times, it was supplanted by prose: “What would be the need for poetry and verse now, when everything is corrected by prose.” At the present time, poetry is losing its significance, since unfavorable social conditions prevent the fulfillment of the high mission of the political and moral education of the people: “This busy task of poetry in ancient times and the untold benefits received from them then would be in our times of equal importance and the same respect, if only all these high advantages had not now been taken away from poetry”; “Before, poetry was a necessary and useful thing, but now it is a comforting and cheerful pastime.” Therefore, he looks skeptically at the future development of poetry: from poetry, “there is truly neither the greatest need nor the most significant benefit,” it is needed insofar as “since fruits and sweets are on the rich table for solid foods.” Having lost its moral and political meaning, it becomes fun and entertains “through the struggle of witty inventions, through the skillful combination and position of flowers and colors, through the amazing harmony of strings, sounds and singing, through the delicious mixing and dissolution of various juices and fruits.” Trediakovsky’s thoughts about the civic sound of poetry are filled with notes of skepticism when he turns to modernity.

The second aspect of the problem of the social role of art was the relationship between the useful and the pleasant as the expected results of the impact of poetry on the reader.

The ideal of the Russian classicists was an organic combination of instruction and pleasure:

“The ironic poem also gives firm instruction to the human race, teaching us to love virtue; it teaches not with gloomy, frowning eyes or with a commanding, deafening voice of arrogance, but with a kindly and touching face, amusing and amusing with songs.”

Russian classicists are devoid of harsh rigorism in determining the results of poetic education; they have no desire to straightforwardly impose their opinion: poetry should “correct us by amusing us.” Explaining D. Barkley’s plan in “Argenida,” Trediakovsky noted; “The author had this intention, so that the reader’s heart, nowhere in this work of his, stopping at firmness, would be amused as much as possible with pleasantries and sweets.”

The art of this author lies in the fact that “he was able to lure” readers to his book “so that they use it not as something that sternly instructs, but as if it amuses them with a game.” But the entertaining side does not exist without the didactic side: “All writers in general should not try to talk about anything else in their writings, other than to bring them benefit, or to please the reader, or to provide instruction for honest and virtuous conduct in life.”

And Sumarokov put in first place the poet’s achievement of a moral goal, although he also did not equate aesthetic perfection with moral edification: “And I think that my comedies can make no less adjustments than they can bring amusement and laughter.” The moralistic attitude of the work does not remove the question of entertainment; benefit and pleasure are combined out of necessity. In his “Word on the Opening of the Academy of Arts,” Sumarokov makes the following comparison in this regard: “Often the eyes of grazing animals are attracted by more flower-bearing meadows than by lush meadows. And if the meadows are both flower-bearing and fat, don’t they have a special power of attraction?” .

One of the early Russian philosophers G.N. Teplov actively developed this issue in his article “Discourse on the beginning of poetry.” He proposed dividing the sciences and arts on the basis that the former address themselves directly to benefit, and the latter – sometimes to benefit, sometimes “to a single amusement or sophistication of our mind, which then always serves as a guide to the knowledge of other things.” Sharing the doctrine of poetry as a specific type of eloquence, Teplov sees in it a means that “can act in human hearts more than any other action.” For a long time, eloquence has had the task of “softening” tyrants, “encouraging society” to war and combat, “quenching passions,” “arousing” the “fire of love” with speech. It was in these tasks that eloquence began to come closer to poetry. At first, being “unregulated,” poetry set as its main goal the satisfaction of passions, and then began to serve the implementation of useful goals. The rules developed by the “wise men” contributed to the process of transforming poetry from a means of expressing passions into a serious matter of national importance. The goals of civic education began to determine its meaning and purpose. “The pleasant” in poetry became a means of expressing its “benefit”: “Poetry had a good reason to take root when it contained something so useful with pleasantness, and it received a good chance of being useful when it was depicted in such a pleasant style.” Moral edification should not be straightforward: the more perfection there is in a work, the more it “serves the rules in correcting the morals of the people,” since readers “receive benefit and amusement,” being “attracted to fun and amusements insensitively.” Like Trediakovsky, Teplov sees the social function of ancient literature in its usefulness for the formation of public opinion.

Russian classicists did not insist on the direct expression of a moralizing tendency; in their opinion, it should be present in the artistic image itself, but poetry does not have a “goal in itself,” its task is to develop and prescribe certain moral norms. The poet had a double task: to exercise political influence in relation to the whole society, and in relation to an individual to give pleasure and benefit. This was most clearly reflected in the main conflict of classicist drama in the form of a sharp opposition between public duty and personal passions.

However, Russian classicists did not clearly understand the essence of the contradictions between the individual and absolutist statehood, which was explained by the insufficient degree of maturity of the social conflicts of the era. “Enlightened absolutism” was perceived by them as the main condition for harmony in the relationship between the individual and society, and therefore the actual social dependence of the classicist writer on state protectionism in the field of culture did not appear in the form of a limitation of the writer’s individual capabilities. Most theorists of Russian classicism shared a civic-moralistic point of view on art, which led them to an abstract awareness of human characters.

What do the reasoning and conclusions of Russian theorists look like against the background of the European theory of poetry?

The question of what is pleasant and useful in poetry was raised in ancient times. Horace in his “Epistle to the Piso” gave a clear answer to this: “Poets strive to bring either benefit or pleasure, or to say what is both pleasant and useful in life,” therefore “the one who mixes the useful with the pleasant will receive general approval.” , equally entertaining and instructing the reader.”

During the Renaissance, the need to justify the independent significance of poetry led theorists to actively defend the thesis about the benefits of poetry, with the help of which humanists tried to neutralize attacks from the scholastics, emphasizing that it was the didactic side of poetry that connected it with the needs of life: poetry teaches people to highly value virtue and condemn vices. Renaissance theorists insisted that a poet must know many sciences and have a university education. It was during this era that the Aristotelian concept of catharsis was given an exclusively moralistic meaning.

The pedagogical-moralistic concept of creativity dominates in Scaliger:

The poet’s goal is to “teach while delighting.”

The moralistic goal of poetry comes first, and the pleasure derived from “poetry is only a means for this. Of the Italian theorists, only Robortello and Castelvetro defend the independence of pleasure from instruction: entertainment in itself is a source of benefit. French classicists saw the main task of the poet to please his readers. “The secret of success is to captivate the viewer with an excited verse,” recommends Boileau. In the preface to the first edition of the fables, J. Lafontaine stated: “The main and, perhaps, the only rule is that the readers like the work.” Racine also believes this principle is fundamental to the genre of tragedy: “The main rule is to please and touch, all others are developed only in order to fulfill it.” In the words of Dorant from the 6th scene of Moliere’s comedy “Critique of the School of Wives” the author’s voice is heard: “The most important rule is to please.” ". Reasonable pleasure is not an enemy, but an instrument of virtue.

A noticeable strengthening of moralizing tendencies occurs in the literary and aesthetic theories of the 18th century. Voltaire, Diderot, Jaucourt, Marmontel, La Harpe 7 believe that all types of art serve an exclusively useful purpose - to make people morally purer, more noble. In carrying out this task, the artist consciously represents virtue as pleasant and vice as disgusting. Each person has a special type of perception for this - to see as his ability to perceive the beautiful as beautiful and the ugly as ugly is pre-organized by nature.

Russian classicists, without going to the extremes of didacticism or hedonism, believed that their main task was to determine the political role of poetry. Lomonosov emphasized the social meaning of creativity, connected it with political good and benefit, saw in the poet a political preacher, whose calling is to be the memory of Russian state glory, Sumarokov widely developed the theme of moral virtue, closely connecting it with politics and condemning its interpretation by sentimentalists.

Teplov and Trediakovsky traced the change in the social role of poetry in different periods of its development. Trediakovsky noted the narrowing of the educational possibilities of poetry in the present. The general view of the role of the poet was summed up by the author of the “Discourse on the Qualities of a Poet”: “It is not enough that a poet wants to please when he cannot teach anything.”

The poet is at the same time a moralist and a political mentor - this thesis, according to the classicists, is confirmed both by the entire history of the development of poetry and by the very fact of its emergence in certain social conditions. The writer's moralistic task became his social task.

According to the views of Russian classicists, the art of words recreates a rational artistic world, in which the determining principle is the ethical will of the author, the possibilities of which are limitless. The basis of an optimistic view of the socially transformative value of poetry rested on three main premises. Firstly, on the idea of ​​​​the omnipotence of nature - the classicists shared Leibniz’s opinion that “that people in Germany - Leibniz, Gottsched, Baumgarten, Sulzer; in Italy - Gravina, Muratori; in England - J. Dennis, A. Pop.

live in “the best of all possible worlds”; secondly, on the idea of ​​the omnipotence of the cognitive abilities of the human mind - the world can be understood, comprehended, and it can be mastered as a result of knowledge; thirdly, on the idea of ​​omnipotence of the ethical will of people - the inner world of a person as a combination of good and evil principles can be changed for the better with the help of moral influence. Art is a specific sphere in which the norms and principles of human morality are immutably and finally crystallized.

The classicists closely connected the social purpose of poetry with the cognitive essence of the art of words. The benefits of poetry are determined by the very fact that it fulfills a serious state task, which involves the reasonable use of time.

But “benefit” is not considered a duty, does not become equivalent to a duty or a lesson of edification, it leads the reader to “pleasure”, which stems from the joy of knowing the world around us in the process of comprehending the meaning of a poetic work.

CLASSICISM ABOUT THE SPECIFICITY OF POETIC CREATIVITY

The concept of imitation in poetry (the nature of its philosophical justification) was the basis of European pre-Romantic theories of poetry. It became the fundamental principle of the entire system of poetics, since the answer to the question: “What is imitation?” - reveals the nature of the relationship of art to reality, and each era tried to solve it in its own way.

In the theory of imitation, the characteristics of the creative process come to the fore; an object and a subject of art are clearly distinguished. The main thing in this theory is the recognition of both the objective correlation between the world of art and the world of nature, and the specific isolation of art.

The first form of the theory of imitation was the ancient doctrine of “mimesis”.

Historically, it was filled with a wide variety of meanings, but had two mandatory prerequisites: reality is recreated on its own initiative and has the highest degree of perfection.

In ancient times, the concept of imitation was not so much aesthetic as it was of a general philosophical nature; the very concept of “imitation,” according to A.F. Losev, was born during the formation of Socrates’ anthropology and had a broad content, being associated with the concepts of imagination, passions, virtues, harmony.

In the general theory of beauty, the doctrine of “mimesis” is one of the main ones. The main task of a philosopher, according to Plato, is to determine where the truth is and where its appearance is. Sensory knowledge forms only an opinion. Knowledge is acquired with the help of certain concepts, which are based on a supersensible idea, which includes the idea of ​​the visible world of dynamic things. According to Plato, the essence of art is imitation, and that is why it does not form knowledge, but only opinion; the purpose of art is to have a moralizing effect on people (in his ideal state he leaves those poets who sing praises to the gods and great people). Not only poetry, but the whole world in Plato’s theory of ideas is an imperfect imitation of an ideal prototype, since the entire universe is the result of a process of imitation of eternal models; all creation comes through imitation.

Imitation is an essential aspect of art; the result of imitation is either copies that are similar to the prototypes, or phantasms that are not similar to them. In this regard, Plato distinguishes between imagination and fantasy and prefers such imagination, thanks to which the similarity of the prototype and the copy is achieved. The doctrine of imitation helps to understand Plato's view of the specifics of the creative act. The demiurge in the dialogue “Timaeus” is deprived of creativity; he is close in his function to the artisan, declaring the act of creativity, but not realizing it. Plato emphasizes the role of the model, the prototype, the eternal idea. Man cannot enrich existence with the creativity of the new, he only changes its form. The art of imitation leads people “far from the truth,” he declares.

Plato - and evaluates him negatively.

If Plato denies the poet’s ability to reproduce truth and allows only the possibility of conveying its appearance, then Aristotle recognizes the intrinsic value of art.

Aristotle also considers imitation to be universal, but in the field of art it creates a new object. Aristotle separated art from the spheres of crafts and sciences. Imitation is the original beginning of poetry. If in life the general is hidden in the concrete and sensual, then in poetry it is revealed and realized. Since poetry reveals the general as necessary and possible, it has a cognitive meaning. Discarding the random, poetry gets closer to science, gives knowledge, highlights the meaning and reasons for facts. Although the relationship between the general and the individual is unclear in Aristotle (the individual really exists, and the general is only thought), he combines the principles of recreation of nature and poetic creativity; since both are subject to the law of imitation. Life is the object of poetry not in appearance, but in essence - according to the principle of imitation. Poetry exists in the ideal sphere of the possible - between the abstractly necessary and the actually accidental.

In the teachings of Aristotle, one should distinguish between the object and the subject of imitation: not in relation to nature and in relation to man. According to the research of A.F. Losev, Aristotle is often incorrectly attributed to the statement that the object of imitation is nature. In the ancient era, the idea of ​​nature as a creative force, the creative impulses of which “awaken the artist’s thoughts, was not developed; it was about imitation of the cosmos, and the “idea of ​​personal creation” was alien to him. Only in the Renaissance was the principle of imitation understood “as the principle of personal creativity” in poetry, when the artist himself creates the form, while in the ancient era the finished form is realized in matter. Imitating the cosmos, the poet realizes the unidentified possibilities of reality.

Art strives to fill what remains unfinished, unidentified, insufficient. But Aristotle also excludes creative imagination from the psychology of the poet.

The problem of imitation in Aristotle is associated with the peculiarities of subjective perception and poetry. When recreating characters and circumstances, the poet must take into account the possible assessment of what is depicted on the part of the reader: “The poet’s task is not to talk about what happened, but about what could happen, and about the possible according to apparent probability or according to necessity”; “the impossible, but seemingly probable, should be preferred to the possible, which does not inspire confidence”; “for poetry, the impossible, which inspires confidence, is preferable to the possible, which does not inspire confidence.”

These thoughts will find their further development among classicists in the theory of probabilistic likelihood as a result of imitation. The doctrine of imitation was widely known in ancient times, but the Aristotelian tradition did not receive noticeable development. Quintilian believed that all imitation is artificial. Cicero limited imitation to matters of composition and style. In Roman rhetoric, the idea of ​​imitation of models was put forward as a means of developing an oratorical style.

The poetics of Horace are indicative in this regard. In the Epistle to the Piso, he almost completely ignores the doctrine that poetry is imitation, focusing on the “rhetorical”, “technological” side of imitation.

The second important stage in the development of the theory of imitation is the Renaissance.

Poetic theories of this time were predominantly cognitive in nature:

a poet is first of all a cognizing subject, and then a creator who begins to compete with nature. Renaissance theorists emphasized the opposition between reality and appearance, sensory nature and its inner essence, and clarified the features of imitation, comparing poetry with history and philosophy. The conclusions they drew from these comparisons were different: Piccolomini sharply separated the truth of poetry from the truth of history, Castelvetro united these two types of knowledge, Robortello and Fracastoro emphasized the ideal moment of imitation, Minturno identified imitation with the fulfillment of the moralistic function of poetry.

According to the majority of Italian theorists, the poet, although he “improves” and idealizes nature, does not deviate from its laws, which in art correlate with the requirement to maintain verisimilitude. This raises the question of fiction. This concept is only emerging during the Renaissance, being closely related to the rhetorical term “invention”.

The idea that the poet must embody exists in the object itself, has no existence outside the thing, therefore art is not something separate from nature. The poet feels like a partner of nature and does not separate himself from it. Nature begins to be perceived in its dynamic development, it becomes a stimulus for poetic creativity. Nature and poetry are perceived as one in the sense that they represent the results of creation as a process of improvement. And for a poet, nature only has the value of a model when he wants to improve and surpass it.

Of particular interest is the theory of Scaliger - one of the immediate predecessors of the classicists; Scaliger repeatedly declares his adherence to the ideas of Aristotle; but, in essence, provides a Renaissance version of the theory of imitation. If Aristotle focuses on the process of creativity itself, then Scaliger in his system gives the main place to the public. Poetry, in his opinion, is one of the types of rhetoric that can most actively influence the listener and, with the help of an entertaining plot, carry out a moralistic tendency.

In a special chapter of the seventh book, Scaliger discusses the issue of the peculiarities of poetic imitation. He denies the validity of Aristotle's judgments that not every imitation serves to create a poetic work and that poetic form is not the main thing in poetry. Scaliger, in contrast to Aristotle, asserts that “the purpose of poetry is not imitation, but rather entertaining instruction, with the help of which a person can achieve the perfection of actions, which is called virtue.” Defining poetry as an instructive doctrine, Scaliger identifies fiction with fiction and contrasts it with truth: “Poetry does not stand out due to imitation, since not every poem is an imitation and not every person who imitates is a poet;

poetry stands out from other areas not because of the use of fiction, or lies, since poetry does not lie, the same poetry that lies always lies and is therefore a special type of poetry, and not poetry in general. Finally, imitation is contained in any type of speech, since words are images of things. The poet’s goal is to instruct while simultaneously giving pleasure.”

Poetry, according to Scaliger, differs from history in that it adds fiction to the truth of a real fact. 8 Lucretius is a good philosopher, but not a poet, since the latter’s task does not include revealing the truth of nature. “The poet imitates human actions and deeds only for the purpose of visibly and clearly expressing a moralistic idea. The meaning of poetic creativity is to influence the audience by any means. Asking further the question whether Lucan can be called a poet, Scaliger answers in the affirmative: since Lucan writes in poetic form, then it is precisely this that distinguishes him from Livy, who used prose for the purposes of historical narration. If Herodotus, Scaliger develops his thought, presents the plots in poetic form, then his work will become. historical poetry, not history. Poetry is imitation in the form of verse, which is the hallmark of the poet. The right to be called a poet belongs to the one who uses the poetic form, and not fiction. The poet is not a creator of fiction, but a compiler of poetry: “The name of the poet does not come from “fiction,” as some people think, believing that the poet operates with fictitious objects, but from the “making” of poetry.

The rhythmic force that is expressed in verse arose simultaneously with human nature” (108, I, 2).

Why does Scaliger so sharply disagree with Aristotle in his interpretation of the problem of imitation while maintaining strict reverence for the merits of the ancient thinker as a whole?

The fact is that for Scaliger nature in its real manifestation is imperfect, in it the beautiful is mixed with the ugly, and only the ancients achieved such perfection that allows the moralistic idea to be most consistently pursued. So,

Virgil created, as it were, a second nature, in comparison with which the real seems devoid of true greatness, that is, the object of imitation is not reality, but the world of art. Scaliger’s theory of “second nature” is a new justification for the requirement to imitate the ancients as eternal models. The poet creates a new reality as if he were equal to God in his capabilities; he creates in his work something superior to nature, replenishing it where it has shown its imperfection. From Aristotle’s definition of the subject of poetry - “the poet’s task is to speak not about what happened, but about what could happen, and about the possible according to apparent probability or according to necessity” - Scaliger concludes that one should imitate not what exists, but what what should be. The poet depicts truly existing objects in accordance with the laws of the possible and necessary, as a result of which he seems to elevate nature: “Poetry is poetry because it reproduces not just objects of the empirical world, but also non-existent objects, which it represents as if they were were real or as if they could or should be so.”

Only in the laws of nature does its perfection appear: “In the very norms and proportions of nature lies its perfection.” Nature appears in the works of ancient authors as returned to its own laws and freed from shortcomings. In terms of scale and diversity, the “ancients” created a kind of “second nature,” ideal and perfect, and in its creation special merit belongs to Virgil: “We are not able to draw our examples from nature as much as from the treasury of Virgil’s ideas.”

So, Scaliger saw the true goal of poetry in delightful instruction, identifying the goal with the essence. Aristotle's theory of imitation turned out to be reduced to the requirement of choosing models from the works of ancient authors, and primarily from Virgil.

The next stage is the era of classicism. Scaliger already advocated for the primacy of reason in poetry, for following the rules of creativity. This trend became dominant during the formation of French classicism in the 17th century. Thoughts about the determining role of subjective perception in poetry, outlined by Aristotle and continued by Italian humanists, come to the fore among the French classicists.

The main problem is how to reconcile creativity with public opinion. “You have the right to add a lot of fiction to the truth” also sounded in a new way.

thesis about imitation of nature. By nature they begin to understand only the inner world of man, his psychology and passions, the expression of feelings. The birth of the classicist ideal is associated with the concept of imitation: nothing is beautiful if it is not true, but only what is true in nature is true.

Based on this ideal, the meaning is determined work of art and the attitude towards “ancient” authors who show the right path to imitation, because they were able to correctly see what was perfect in nature and recreate it in their creativity. Therefore, if a French poet imitates the ancients, then he uses the best means to express the perfection and “truth” of nature. The problem of imitation among the classicists was not entirely consistently reduced to how and with what degree of plausibility one should imitate ancient authors, which then gave rise to a well-known dispute: who achieved a more perfect result - “ancient” or “new” authors.

Boileau brings the thesis of imitation of nature as close as possible to the requirement to imitate the ancients, since the latter created timeless examples. For him, nature appears to have been liberated in advance, “cleansed of shortcomings” through the efforts of the ancients, and therefore has become more majestic and ideally organized. Although rationalism is already noticeable among the thinkers of the Renaissance, the cult of antiquity is subordinated to the cult of reason only among the classicists. The mind becomes the highest regulator of creativity. He outlines the boundaries of imagination, fiction, decides what is probable and what is plausible. Boileau notes Ronsard’s “bad way of imitating the ancients,” since he is blind and empirical, not enlightened by the principle of rationality. The requirement to imitate nature means in practice following reason, which subordinates the will of the poet to a moralistic goal and protects against uncritically following the models of the ancients. Reason in Boileau's concept indicates and determines patterns and forms rules.

The thesis about the need for rules and doctrine was put forward by the poets of the French Pleiades, but in practice, they advocated free imitation, not constrained by time frames. Ronsard and Du Bellay, in their understanding of imitation, gravitated towards the provisions of Roman rhetoric. If Vida justified the need to imitate nature with the authority of the classics, and Scaliger saw in Virgil a kind of “second nature,” then Boileau attaches exceptional importance to reason. Boileau believes that the ancients slavishly followed nature, so the French turn to antiquity for visual confirmation that their own means are correct and express “nature and truth” in the best way yet known. Boileau's criticism is less learned, appeals to what is known to all common sense, he has no scientific pretensions, philological or historical interests, for him Virgil is not the father of all sciences and arts. The ancients lose their all-encompassing significance (Boileau does not speak about them in Canto I). The “ancients” for Boileau are examples to prove his own theses. He admires the “ancients,” but recognizes their significance insofar as in all centuries man remains the same being: the passions and feelings of people are identical, psychologically unchanged.

In Boileau, reason receives a pantheistic coloring, and nature acquires rational content.

The truthful as identical to the rational is the most important systematic basis of Boileau’s poetics:

Only the truthful is beautiful. Only the truthful is pleasant.

It must reign everywhere... (Epistle IX, v. 43-44).

Reason elevates everyday nature, making it majestic in works of art.” Gradually, Boileau limited the scope of imitation; nature became the subject of poetry only in its conceptual content, and not in the external manifestation of sensory objects. For the classicist, nature is not the world of phenomena in its infinite multiplicity and diversity, not the totality of sensory data, but what is mentally recreated by man. Classicists have no place in poetry for external “landscape” nature; they limit themselves to depicting man in his universal, abstract, and not individual consciousness and behavior. The poet imitates nature by moving from its external appearance to its logical essence.

Enlightenment theories of artistic creativity largely retain the classicist understanding of imitation. Imitation of nature, Diderot believes in the “Salon” of 1765, forms the basis of all arts and has as its goal the creation of a correspondence between the image and the thing. To correctly recreate nature and maintain this correspondence, one must learn to “see” it, and knowledge of ancient examples is a necessary condition for poetic creativity: “It seems to me that one should study antiquity in order to learn to see nature.” Diderot believes that by imitating nature , the author must create a certain impression on the listener, influencing him with his moralistic concept. But nature does not carry ethical principles; poets need to create the illusion of truth in the depiction of nature for the purpose of moral influence, that is, the imitation of nature is in accordance with a given ideal. In the introduction to the “Salon” of 1767, Diderot points out that the process of imitation involves the reproduction of the ideal model and the elimination of the individual and insignificant features of the natural prototype. In this regard, the Ancients constitute a model of how to make a choice of beauty and create ideal poetry. denies the validity of the statement that any nature is beautiful, since the peculiarity of a truthful image lies in its universal character: “True in this sense is nothing other than the general.”

The poet improves nature, approaching it with a certain degree of probability, since he does not copy reality, but reproduces the picture; arising in his imagination, which always deforms what we necessarily imitate.

Diderot's ideal remains absolute and unchanging. “I want my morals and my taste to be eternal.”

The need for aesthetic choice led to the creation of the theory of imitation of “beautiful nature.” This new concept was most fully and consistently outlined by S. Batte, who reduced all poetry and all types of art to the principle of imitation of “beautiful nature.” According to Batte, the artist chooses from various objects their most beautiful aspects and then combines them into one whole: “All the efforts of genius should have been aimed at selecting the most beautiful elements from nature and combining them into “a single perfect whole, more perfect than nature itself, but at the same time not losing its naturalness.” Nature in art is purified from its shortcomings and elevated to ideal perfection. The ugly and ugly have no place in poetry, since nature is freed from its “non-representational” sides. “Beautiful nature” is nothing more than a stylized ideal of a typically universal “nature”. The pleasant illusion of art is that the nature depicted is sufficiently plausible to not in any way contradict the real one, and beautiful enough to be above the everyday. In his bold attempt to reconcile the depiction of reality with the idealizing tendency of the art of classicism, Batte had to expand the usual concept of nature, including in its content four spheres: 1) the actually existing world (physical, moral, political); 2) the world of history (great events and famous people); 3) the world of fable fiction (imaginary gods and heroes); 4) the world of ideas as the realm of the possible, where things exist only as universalities.

Batte's theory was actively adopted by Russian classicists.

So, in the Renaissance, the principles of imitation of nature and models are combined, the classicists put forward a normative ideal. “Nature” remains a fragile and abstract psychological concept. The concept of fiction stands out from the field of rhetoric, where it was identified with “image,” and moves into the field of poetics.

The connection between fiction and imitation is emerging, although it is fragile.

The theorists of Russian classicism continued the ancient and Western European traditions, but the significance of the independent conclusions of Russian theorists is undeniable.

The need to preserve and develop national identity was clearly recognized by Russian authors. Lomonosov emphasized: “In order not to introduce anything objectionable, and not to leave anything good, you need to look at who is better to follow and in what.”

While developing the theory of fiction and imitation, Russian theorists proposed a unique interpretation of it. This theory was the basis for the entire system of literary views of Russian classicists.

Lomonosov's “Rhetoric” brings us closely to the problems of artistic imagery, which he reveals in the doctrine of poetic fiction. Fiction is a distinctive and specific aspect of the process of poetic creativity. The term “description” Lomonosov means such an “image of some thing”, which can be divided into “true and fictitious”. In the first case, “a thing is depicted that really exists and was,” and there are many such “descriptions in writers of true histories and in geographical books, such as Pomponius and Pliny.” In the second case, “a fictional description depicts a thing that does not exist and has never happened,” but it “does not differ from fiction,” and “such descriptions are very often found among poets.”

Thus, fiction distinguishes the poet from the historian and geographer, constituting the soul of poetry.

Fiction is an essential prerequisite for poetry, since it represents the idea contained in the poem “more magnificent, stronger and more pleasant.” Lomonosov distinguishes fiction from the florid speeches of the Baroqueists, which “consist more in thoughts and subtle reasoning.” “Fiction is separated from mental things and presented vividly, as something sensitive,” in this statement he emphasizes the specific nature of artistic fiction, its visibility, accessibility to perception. Fiction does not come close to the constructions of abstract thought. It is not equivalent to an allegory, because in it “the ideas themselves, but in an allegory only speeches are transferred.”

Lomonosov departs from the theories of French classicism, where fiction is equivalent to an allegorical addition with an imperceptibly hidden morality, and from the theory of Baroque, where fiction is equivalent to decoration and is exclusively formal in nature. For Baroque poets, poetry is a game in which the rules of reality have no force; they are created anew each time, showing more and more new ingenuity. Truth and fiction are found on different levels in Baroque poetry, so that the distinction between truth and falsehood remains insignificant. For Lomonosov, fiction retains cognitive significance.

The high style of poetry receives its “splendor” from inventions, “which especially in poetry have great power and can rightly be called the soul of high verse, which can be clearly seen in famous poets.”

Here Lomonosov distinguishes fiction from a rhetorical figure, decoration, and considers it a particularly effective means of poetic recreation of reality, when the poet is in a state of admiration and “presents himself as amazed in a dream, arising from a very great, unexpected or terrible and supernatural deed.” Fiction is not a category of stylistics, but a concept characterizing the sphere of artistic epistemology.

Depending on how closely fiction is connected with history, Lomonosov distinguishes two of its varieties: “pure” and “mixed,” that is, something that “has never happened in the world” and that is partly fictitious. Fiction as a result of fantasy and historical facts, combining into an artistic whole, do not contradict each other. Fiction is specific to poetry, but at the same time it does not oppose the truth of a single fact.

Including in the realm of pure fiction “Esopus’ parables, Apuleius’s fables about the golden donkey, Petronian Satyricon, Lucian’s conversations, Barclay’s Argenides, Gulliver’s Travels” and highlighting Homer’s “Iliad” and “Odyssey”, Virgil’s “Aeneid”, Ovid’s “Metamorphosis”, “Adventures” Telemachus” by Fenelon into a special area of ​​“mixed” fictions, Lomonosov pursues the goal of distinguishing between epic and narrative of a romantic type. An epic, according to Lomonosov, should have historical background, since its main pathos is to glorify the “glorious men” of Russian history and the “glorious deeds of great heroes.” Thus, the plot basis of the epic poem does not mechanically combine historical (as understood by people of the 18th century) and fictional facts, but organically processes them. This can be confirmed by another classification of Lomonosov - “whole” and “particular” fictions - in which the epic refers to “whole” fictions, covering all aspects of a work of art. This also includes tragedies, comedies, eclogues, fables, parables, stories, i.e.

the main genres of classicist fiction.

Lomonosov reveals the concept of fiction not only in comparison with fantasy as a means of “combining strange and distant” ideas, but, which is very important for understanding the intentions of Lomonosov the classicist, with the requirement of verisimilitude. Fiction is an “invention” of the plausible, giving “a clear and vivid representation of an action with the circumstances by which it is imagined in the mind, as the action itself” (13, VII, 282]. Lomonosov insists on maintaining “the similarity of the fictional image with the thing itself,” to which “the actions, properties and circumstances of the thing itself” must be given. It is important not only to “observe the similarity of the fictitious image with the thing itself,” but also “to try so that the fictitious image of the part, actions and circumstances have some properties of the thing that is under it.” it appears.” With the help of fiction, a transition occurs from the perception of an object to its artistic representation, and the poet’s living representation is realized in verbal form. In the process of “fiction,” it is necessary to constantly correlate the artistic image with the requirements of verisimilitude. The logic of artistic reconstruction is based on the laws of reality, limits and. The boundaries of fiction are set by reason, which not only compares fiction and reality, but also controls their correspondence.

The doctrine of verisimilitude is an essential part of the classicist theory of imitation, and it cannot be considered as a requirement for realistic reproduction, since the artistic world created through fiction is closed in itself and is built according to a model internally set by the mind only in general, logical agreement with the real. Lomonosov understands the requirement of verisimilitude as an internally determined correlation of individual aspects of a work, “when many properties, parts or circumstances of the thing being compared and the similarity itself, decently related to each other, are proposed.” Reality is cognized by the poet's mind in the aspect of the possible and probable, because the world of the possible is more reasonable and ideal than the everyday world with its unforeseen contingencies. Fiction is the most appropriate means of elevating the actual as separate to the possible and the probable as general. Fiction as the “power of imagination” forms and regulates associations of the imagination in the process of imitation.

The principle of verisimilitude is a consequence of the Aristotelian and Renaissance understanding of the differences between history and poetry: the first refers to the truth of a single fact, and the second to its appearance, to its reliable similarity to it. This is how Gottsched formulated it: “I understand poetic verisimilitude as the similarity of fiction with what can happen in reality.”

Boileau strictly distinguished between the truthful and the plausible:

The incredible cannot be touched.

Let the truth always look believable:

We are cold-hearted towards absurd miracles, And only the possible is always to our taste.

“We demand from art not truth, but ennobled similarity,” wrote Marmontel. French classicism especially emphasized the absolute differences between what happened and what could have happened.

The classicists distinguished between what actually happened, what could happen, and what could happen by mental assumption. The first constitutes the subject of history, the second and third - the possible and the probable - form the sphere of poetry. Fiction is the specifically creative principle of poetry. Therefore, a consistent classicist denies the benefit of works with a plot that is unknown to the public and depicts unusual circumstances, although they can be confirmed by historical documents. The reader or viewer will not be interested in something that he has little faith in, and will rather agree with a fictitious plot if it seems plausible to him. When assessing the credibility of an image, a person’s subjective confidence is of decisive importance as the most important aspect of his psychology. Plausibility is a form of expression of the possible, but not in itself, but in relation to the “general opinion” about what is depicted.

The poet, with the help of fiction, makes the transition from directly of this world phenomena to the logically forced world of the mind, must comply with the requirement of verisimilitude.

The reality of an actual fact, confirmed by history or tradition, may seem incredible to the mind. Since the poet must actively influence the reader’s consciousness, it is not the documentary nature of what is depicted, but its internal logical persuasiveness that determines the poet’s success.

The concept of verisimilitude in the system of classicism helps to understand the essence of their view of the “individual” of poetry, which differs from the “individual” of history, since these are only appearances of the individual. Poetry, like philosophy, deals with the general, but unlike the latter, it does not refuse to express the individual. By achieving one or another degree of verisimilitude of the image, the artist excludes the play of chance inherent in the individual and introduces it into the sphere of the universal. Yu. N. Davydov formulates the features of the Aristotelian tradition in the following way in the interpretation of the relationship between the general and the individual: “Art gives the public only the appearance of knowledge of the individual, imitating this appearance with the help of the “general” (probable and necessary).” In the concept of classicist verisimilitude, the process of imitation involves the reproduction of the “general” reality, which is equal to the “general” art, and the “invention” of “individual” art, which does not coincide with the “individual” reality. It is in the requirement of verisimilitude that the semantic spheres of imitation and fiction are united. The degree of probability of the events and characters depicted in the work is determined by the perception of the public. The greatest degree of reliability and persuasiveness of what is depicted in works of art leads readers and listeners to the idea that it is identical to the subject of the image.

Classicists strive in every possible way to reduce the illusion of artificiality to a minimum.

Sumarokov points out:

Try to measure the clock for me in the game for hours, So that I, having forgotten myself, can believe you, That it’s not a game, it’s your action, But existence itself happened then.

And don’t strum empty words to me in poetry, Tell me only what the passions themselves will say.

But they did just the opposite. By highlighting the achievement of a strong impression from a work of art, they obscured the question of the truth of the characters and situations depicted. The illusion of authenticity among classicists blurs the boundaries of art and reality - such is the price of moralistic teaching.

The material of art is often not what is true, but what seems true and probable in imaginary situations. “A poet has the right to prefer verisimilitude to truth,” said critics of the French Academy in 1638 regarding Corneille’s tragedy “The Cid,” “and it is better to develop a fictional plot, but reasonable, than truthful, but not meeting the requirements of reason.” - Moreover, “it would be incomparably better when developing the plot of “Sid” to sin against the truth,” and they consider it unforgivable to “transfer to the stage a genuine historical event in all its ugliness.”

Lomonosov repeatedly reminds us that fiction must be plausible and consistent with the requirements of “decent” (a synonym for plausibility).

In the chapter “On the dissemination of “ideas”” he writes: “Through intention, an idea can be disseminated if it is imagined that it is possible and convenient or impossible and inconvenient, has obstacles or assistance, which can be taken from the properties of place, time and signs of the thing itself , on which the intention is placed, and the one who undertook it” .. The idea of ​​a “decent” image can be traced throughout the “Rhetoric”:

“invented ideas” should be represented by “decent and chosen speeches,” arranging and connecting them “in a decent order”; “Decentness” is observed in the use of metaphors (“to high and important things it is indecent to transfer utterances from low things”), grammatical forms, rhetorical figures, up to “the subtlest philosophical imaginations and reasonings”, which “we have decent and thing-expressing speeches” .

Thus, in the theory of fiction, Lomonosov acts as a classicist.

Genetically, Lomonosov's theory is connected with the “school” poetics of the turn of the 17th-18th centuries. It is known that he was familiar with it from the textbook by F. Kvetnitsky, written for the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy in 1732. This author called poetry “the art of interpreting any matter in a measured style with a plausible fiction for amusement and benefit.” listeners." Fiction is a necessary condition for the poetic, otherwise we have before us “not a poet, but a versifier,” “poetically, to invent means to find something invented,” and “fiction is not a lie,” since “to lie means to go against reason.” But these genetic connections do not provide grounds to identify the theory of Lomonosov the classicist with the “school” theory, since similar provisions function in different systems.

Academic literary criticism of the 19th century, considering Lomonosov's theory, one-sidedly emphasized the influence of Gottsched. As far as the fiction theory is concerned, there is very little basis for this. In our opinion, Lomonosov here became close to Gottsched's opponents - the Swiss critics Bodmer and Breitinger. Influenced by the philosophical teachings of Leibniz, who argued that we live in the best of possible worlds, they advocated expanding the role of imagination, fantasy, and the miraculous.

The requirement to increase the rights of the subjective side of poetry led them to search for new types of individual expressiveness. Bodmer and Breitinger turned to the sense of the sublime, placed nature and reason above rules, united reason and imagination and began to assert the possibility of “supernatural” content of poetry.

Lomonosov, in his own way, comes to a similar interpretation of fiction, namely: fiction is abstraction not only with the help of reason, but also with the help of imagination. The idea of ​​the existence of “possible” worlds strengthened the position of those who emphasized the active role of fiction in the theory of creative imagination. But the theories of Bodmer and Breitinger did not contain a general criticism of the concept of imitation, since, while asserting the rights of fantasy, they remain rationalists and act from the position of classicist verisimilitude.

The very concept of nature expanded. Lomonosov does not specifically use the term “imitation of nature,” but the general meaning of his remarks is “not to act against nature”; “the natural is that nature itself will follow, as it demands, which happens according to time, place or dignity” - and the understanding of the relationship between fiction and verisimilitude indicates that he objectively shared this theory, focusing his primary attention on fiction as the main means imitation. Lomonosov's fiction is a specific means of recreating the essence of nature in poetry. Possessing a creative character, he is closely connected with fantasy and imagination, but these connections are subject to control by the mind, which is manifested in the requirement to maintain verisimilitude.

Very interesting remarks about the leading role of fiction in poetry are contained in the article “On the qualities of a poet, a discussion” anonymously published in the magazine “Monthly Works” (1755, May). Here the demand for independent and original fiction is clearly put forward. In contrast to those who saw ways to improve mastery in imitation of exemplary authors, this article affirms the idea of ​​active invention: “If a happy mind were filled with literature, then it would be able to give birth to something new and unprecedented not only by imitation, but also by its own invention.” The author of the article explains the creative beginning of fiction by the peculiarities of poetry as a whole: “The rules of poetic science alone do not make a poet, but his thought is born both from deep erudition and from the high spirit and natural poetic fire added to it.”

G. N. Teplov made his contribution to the creation of the general theory of imitation. The starting point of his discussion “On the Beginning of Poetry” was Aristotle’s idea about the innateness of imitation. Teplov pointed out that “the solitude of the shepherd in the forests with the birds gave him the inclination to imitate” and that “the natural human tendency to imitate is not alone in acting in him,” it is joined by “the love of fun and merriment.” These assumptions serve as Teplov’s basis for defining “the nature or affinity of poetry”: “The innate tendency in man to imitate nature and to have fun has produced many sciences and arts, including poetry showing its foundation”; imitation of nature is connected with everything that “has happened or could happen to a person in life.” Teplov, speaking about the emergence of poetry, about its sources and about imitation as the essence of poetry, continues the ideas of Aristotle: if a person “had not had an inclination from his birth to imitate and to take over the image visible in front of him, then he would not have understood or done anything, not to say."

Aristotle, as we know, believed that man by nature is inclined to imitate, and from this peculiarity he drew an important conclusion for art as a whole: any imitation brings knowledge of something new and this gives pleasure. Poetry and everyday life have similar principles in their internal processes.

The proof of this is what happens in everyday life: “What we actually look at with disgust, we look at the most accurate images of it with pleasure, such as the image of disgusting animals and corpses.”

This is what Aristotle wrote in Rhetoric and summarized his thought as follows:

“Since teaching and admiration are pleasant, everything similar to this will necessarily be pleasant, for example, imitation, namely painting, sculpture, poetry and in general any good imitation, even if the object of imitation in itself does not represent anything pleasant; in this case, we experience pleasure not from the object of imitation itself, but from the thought that this (imitation) is equal to that (object of imitation), so that cognition appears here.” This joy from imitation in art is explained by the fact that by comparing the image and the prototype, a person acquires new knowledge. Thesis about cognitive nature art, put forward by Aristotle, found a creative continuation in the Russian theory of poetry in the 18th century.

Teplov especially emphasizes the result of imitation, which is visible in acquired knowledge, which brings benefit and pleasure when contemplating works of art:

“Let us imagine the breaking of a ship, the killing of a baby, a snake; a dragon or a reptile, the corpse of a dead person: all this alive is very unpleasant to our eyes: it brings fear, horror and abomination. But when we see the same thing imitated in a painting by great art, we do not hesitate to supply magnificent houses for beauty. Such pleasure to the eyes comes from nothing else than the fact that we are by nature inclined to imitate, therefore, art is pleasant to us, which makes our inclination satisfying.” Teplov is far from the principle of S. Batte - to imitate “decorated” nature, pre-selected, cleansed of external unattractive features. For Teplov, “not only what is pleasant in nature, but also those very things from which we have fear, disgust and disgust, when we see their nature vividly depicted in a picture, he feels pleasure in his heart and in his eyes.” Teplov believes that everything in nature is worthy of being the object of poetic creativity. Art is capable of transforming any reality, so great is the power of creative invention. In this he is undoubtedly close to Boileau:

Sometimes on a canvas a dragon or a vile reptile catches the eye with living colors, and what would seem terrible to us in life becomes beautiful under the master’s brush.

Thus, the Aristotelian doctrine of the typifying, transformative role of art in the process of recreating reality was the basis for the development of the Russian theory of classicism. During the depiction of reality, an act of cognition is performed. But unlike Aristotle, Teplov places greater emphasis on the sensory side of perception both when creating and when contemplating works of art. Thus, in accordance with the classic theory of passions, Teplov emphasized the role of love feelings in the creation of lyrical songs and noted that poetry is born in the depths of human feelings as a result of a special delight and a special kind of imagination.

Trediakovsky approached the analysis of the concepts of “fiction” and “imitation” from a different angle. He resolutely insisted that poetic form is an insignificant feature of poetry. This point of view was shared by Lomonosov: “Although prose differs from a poem for excellent composition, and therefore should be different in calm, however, in the discourse of the society of matter it is very similar to it, for one can write about one thing in prose and verse.”

Trediakovsky consistently pursued the idea of ​​distinguishing between genuine poetry and “poetry”: “But how long has the soul of poems been in verse? And can he be called a pyit who only composes poetry, without any pyit spirit?”; “verse is not a great thing, but drinking in humanity is something rare.” He strictly distinguished between poetry and poetry throughout his creative activity, since the fundamental primacy of content for him was undoubted. “The direct concept of poetry,” he writes in the article “Opinion about the beginning of poetry and poetry in general,” “is not about composing poetry, but about creating, inventing and imitating,” since “the soul and life of the poem” (i.e. that is, any poetic work according to the terminology of that time) constitutes “creation, invention and imitation,” and verse “is the language thereof”; poetry is “internal in those three; and the verse is only external.”

In the early stages of the development of the classicist theory of poetry, the problem of distinguishing between the poetic and non-poetic was solved on the basis of one criterion of poetic form. The patterns of speech externally ordered by rhythm were unique determinants of poetry; sometimes the distinctive features of “measured” speech were used as a criterion for distinguishing poetry from rhetorical prose.

Thus, in the neo-Latin tradition of the theory of poetry (Pontan, Masen, Foss), as well as in. Scaliger, and Boileau, the poetic form remained an essential aspect of poetry. Russian theorists seek to determine the essence of poetry using the theory of imitation and fiction. And here again the tradition of Aristotle turns out to be significant, to whom Trediakovsky refers, quoting him from the translation of Alexander of Pavia: “Verse and prose do not distinguish the historian; with piit: for although Herodotus’ history will be composed in verse, it will always be, as before, history.”

The separation of poetry and poetry was outlined even in “school” poetics in the formula “differentia inter poetam et versificatorem,” but in most cases poetry was considered as a type of eloquence, albeit expressed in the form of verse. This division in school poetics remained within the limits of external form; in Trediakovsky it received a deeply meaningful interpretation.

Mentioning that “many, writing about the origins of poetry, sometimes merged it with poetry,” Trediakovsky complains that etymologically, in its internal form, the word “poem” does not correspond to its true meaning, since it does not contain an indication to invention and imitation. He establishes the equality of prosaic and poetic forms: “You can create, invent and imitate in prose, and you can represent true actions in verse.” The main feature of the poetic is creative imitation and invention. Truly poetic heights in prose form were reached, according to Trediakovsky, by D. Barkley in “Argenides” and Fenelon, in “The Wanderings of Telemachus”, he calls them real “piites”. He denies this high title to Lucan, the author of the “Pharsalia”, since he only presented the historical plot in the form of a poetic story. In this regard, it is possible. remember Scaliger, who defended Lucan’s right to be called a poet.

Trediakovsky's desire to exclude poetic form as a defining feature of the poetic should not be considered as a denial of the possibilities of verse in poetry. As is known, he attached great importance to verse, its forms and types, but did not link this with the general category of poetry: “Verse is a human invention in contrast to their ordinary word.” In the second edition of “A Method for Composing Russian Poems,” he once again recalled the division of speech into “free, or prose, which especially belongs to retors and historians,” and poetry, which “for the most part is used by piits.” Defending the naturalness of epic as “an imitator of nature,” he noted that “non-verbal” speech “is inherently more natural than verse.”

Similar trends can be traced in the German theory of poetry (I. E. Schlegel, K. F. Bremer); The debate about the advantages of poetic and prose forms was intense in 18th-century France, although due to the peculiarities of French versification it was reduced to the issue of the use of rhyme.

How did Trediakovsky imagine the distinctive and essential properties of poetry - invention and imitation? Turning to the legacy of Aristotle, he compares the historian and the poet and emphasizes those words of the ancient philosopher, in which it is noted that “the historian does things as they were, but he suggests how they could have been.” In the preface to “Argenida” he develops this idea: “The essential property by which a piit is a piit is that its inventions are probable, that is, that they are not a representation of things and deeds as they are, or in what order they were produced, but in such a way that they could be similar to the truth.” Having established the need for plausible fiction, he explains the essence of “fiction” as a process of imitation of nature: “This means that he is an imitator of nature, so even if Livy made his hysteria in verse, and Virgil made his Aeneid in prose, however, the first would be absolutely as much and then the historian, no matter how much the latter would certainly drink, for one would write directly in verse, and the other in prose in a way that is probably similar in nature.” Plausibility is not an end in itself for classicists, it is only a condition for aesthetic impact.

When Trediakovsky analyzes the poetic poems of Virgil, Tasso, Milton, and Voltaire in the preface to Barkley’s “Argenida,” he points out that “all of these are not written in the same way that they wrote in verse; for poetry they would only be poets, as Quintilian calls them, or verse collectors, as Scaliger calls them.” Moving on to a specific consideration of Barkley’s work, he once again emphasized that Barkley “did not write in poetry because he did not want to be a poet, but imitated only one nature, and in the discourse of poetry did not imitate any of the poets”; “He wanted himself to be the original and for others to imitate him.” Trediakovsky consistently pursues the idea that the essence of poetic creativity is the imitative reproduction of the laws of nature through creative invention.

In accordance with this, Trediakovsky divided the process of creating a work of art into three stages: “creation”, “fiction”, “imitation”.

Creation is “the arrangement of things after election,” that is, by depicting natural phenomena, the poet groups them anew. The next stage is “fiction”: “not a representation of actions as they are in themselves, but as they can be, or should be.”

The result of “pyitical invention” is imitation: “following in all nature the description of things and deeds according to probability and similarity to the truth.”

Trediakovsky more than once emphasized the active nature of fiction in poetry.

Reviewing the tragedy of Sumarokov, he noted the advantage of fiction in poetry over logic: “Excellent wit is not only in the concept, but also in fiction and invention.” In the preface to Argenida, Trediakovsky gave his classification of types of fiction. The first type consists of those in which the reader encounters “reliably known,” “undoubted,” something that “the author’s thought completely declares and then directly leads him to understand what he proposes”; here he includes what “finally, by the addition of names and by the transformation of them, is clearly and accurately known.” The second type includes “those descriptions from which it is never possible to conclude anything, nor can they be directly applied to anything known.” The third type occupies a kind of middle place in it; it talks about things “neither directly known nor completely doubtful.” In these considerations, taken in the context of the entire preface to Argenida, one can see Trediakovsky’s attempt to separate fiction from fiction and give its use in poetry a special meaning. Of course, he does not achieve the clarity that we see in Lomonosov, but the main thing is the establishment of connections between fiction and reality with the facts of reality, when the “probability of a fable” is connected with the “truth of history.”

In the theory of fiction, Trediakovsky comes close to the question of the philosophical understanding of nature (nature, nature), in poetry: “Piitic possibility is a philosophical possibility, proven by reason,” “Piitic fiction happens according to reason, that is, how a thing could have been or should have been “With the help of fiction, the poet, in the process of imitation, carries out a generalized reproduction of reality, which is clearly demonstrated, according to Trediakovsky, by the heroic poem, which, “by nailing this very story to a single point, will allow it to appear in a very attractive form, and this as a subtraction from it.” vast space, and by adding to it the most cheerful detours.”

From the fact that the basis of a poetic work is fiction, the conclusion follows: fiction is not equivalent to fiction, but carries a cognitive meaning: “Just because he is a creator, an inventor and an imitator, does not mean that he is a liar,” so as “a lie is a word against reason and conscience.” Reason gives cognitive energy to fiction. Further specification of the question of whether the poet, thanks to the use of fiction, is a liar is contained in the preface to “Tilemakhide,” which examines the relationship of the requirement of verisimilitude to fiction, which Trediakovsky separates from “naturally witty falsehoods” that have “all the importance of truth.”

It is fiction, as the invention of a possible and probable combination of characters, circumstances and situations, that distinguishes a true poet. The theory of fiction allows Trediakovsky to briefly but clearly outline the main difference between poetry as spiritual creativity and the creation of material objects: “Pite is also not a craftsman: every artist makes in different ways from piit,” since “to create in a piitical way is to imitate the likeness of possible things, true images.” This formula, amazing in its brevity and capacity, contains the essence of Trediakovsky’s poetic theory. In it, he emphasizes the spiritual and creative specificity of poetry, in which the objective world of reality is creatively transformed into the world of art. As for “other handcrafted arts,” they “represent their works as they are directly and truly in nature or in what state they were.”

Trediakovsky’s indication of the difference between poetry and “handmade arts”, in which it is not fiction that dominates, but mechanically accurate copying of the external appearance of objects, to a certain extent opposes the views of Teplov, who believed that “perhaps more than one poet remains hidden in the craftsman for the sole reason that that he was born in such circumstances, that it was easier and closer for him to learn a craft than to accustom his innate talent of the poetic spirit to become a perfect poet.”

The sphere of fiction is the possible and probable, and everything depicted in it must maintain a general similarity and similarity with the world of reality. For “master artists” “the possibility is just as historical, which is narrated, and from artists, as if by a true narration, it is mechanically produced.” Thus, Trediakovsky isolated poetry not only from the field of philosophy and history, but also took it beyond the “mechanical” arts The division into “free” and “mechanical” arts, which began in ancient times, represented the first attempt to isolate spiritual creativity from the field of human material activity. Until the 18th century. the distinction between science and art remained largely formal, and Trediakovsky’s efforts in this area deserve to be noted as innovative and educational.

How are the limits of plausibility established? How can fiction be limited? Although Trediakovsky’s answer is somewhat general, it leaves no doubt - the regulator of fiction is nature (“nature”) and “reason.” This is the limit beyond which the artist’s imagination does not go. “The funny of art should be a copy of the funny that is in nature,” writes Trediakovsky. “The very art of comedy [consists] in sticking to nature and never departing from it”; “One always likes the roughest designs of nature more than the most delicate ones, which are not by nature.” Trediakovsky formulates the connection between the requirement of verisimilitude and the observance of probable similarity with nature: “By adhering only firmly to nature, we obtain probability, which is one true leader that must be followed.” He speaks about this in the preface to “Tilemakhida”: “A dramatic poem should be, throughout the word, completely similar to nature.”

Briefly summarizing his point of view: “Pyit is the zograph of nature” - and insisting on the unity of the poetic and pictorial principles of representation, Trediakovsky defines the poet’s task not “only to describe simple things, but also to represent them in a way that is only alive and tangible, that everyone imagines them in their faces see" . And this is achieved with the help of artistic invention. It is not so much the imitation of models, but the imitation of nature with the help of fiction that underlies the theory of classicism in Russia.

In the process of imitation with the help of fiction in poetry, the truth of passions is learned. Extolling the virtues of the author. “The Adventures of Telemachus,” Trediakovsky discovers in his work “a bright flame, which alone is supplied by nature,” so that “everywhere art becomes nature.” But sometimes his attention was attracted by the “dressed up, decorated and blushed” nature. Here is what he writes in the article “On the purity and pleasantness of village life”: “Everyone would like it if it were possible not to part with being so polite and pleasant for even an hour. At least they tried, already comforted by the impossibility of creating some kind of seduction for themselves by exaggeration, so that, so to speak, villages and fields are not simple and almost rude in appearance, not knowing beauties except natural ones, and not borrowing anything from art, but villages, fields, let me say , combed, dressed up, tidied up, and I almost spoke of blushed decency.” Here Trediakovsky clearly hints at the peculiarities of the depiction of nature in the genres of the idyll and eclogue, although he evades the central premises of his theory. As for the “important” genres, then “the height lies in the imitation of simple nature, the preparation of adventures in a way so subtle that they cannot be foreseen, and in the conduct of those with such art that everything new seems natural.” The author in an epic always follows “nature in all its differences.” “Fiction according to reason” goes within the framework of strictly consistent genres; the reasonableness of the image is achieved through the design of the work according to the laws of the genre: in “Argenida” “natural beauty, that is, such as the matter required it, otherwise it would have been unnatural.”

“Art” and “nature” are opposed by Trediakovsky to “enthusiasm” (i.e.

imagination). He questions the thesis of Italian poetry theorists about the superiority of Virgil's work over Homer - the first gave an example of orderliness, correctness, clarity and completeness of presentation. According to Trediakovsky, Virgil failed by constituting an artificial work devoid of Homer's simplicity. But Homer’s “enfusiasm” sometimes “leads to the oblivion of art, to the neglect of order, to the fact that it goes beyond the boundaries of nature.” On the contrary - “the magnificent splendor, the mature reasoning and the dignified procession of Maron are sometimes transformed into a correctness that is excessively decent, which makes him seem to be more of a historian than a poet.” At the end of the comparison of Virgil and Homer, Trediakovsky asks the question why modern “philosophizing pyites” admire Virgil. And again the criterion for him is imitation of nature:

“Doesn’t this happen, I think, from their feeling that it is more convenient to imitate with art the great reasoning of the Latin poet than with the exquisite fire breathing of the Hellenic poet, which is taught only by nature?” .

Trediakovsky opposes the poetic concepts of the Baroque, considers it a false taste to “decorate, lavish and luxurious everywhere and always” and only then recognizes descriptions as “magnificent” when they are natural and “not only copied from nature, but also from a kind nature.” True, sometimes he used formulations that, to a certain extent, brought him closer to representatives of the Baroque. Thus, in “A Letter to a Friend about the Current Benefit of Poetry to Citizenship,” he notes that a person enjoys in art “the struggle of witty inventions, the skillful combination and position of flowers and paints, the amazing harmony of strings, sounds and singing.” But such thoughts occur to him by chance, clearly falling out of his common system views.

The main thing is to stick to nature, follow nature, create like nature. The poet does not enter into competition with nature, since he cannot surpass it with the power of his individuality.

The intelligibility and intelligibility of a work is unattainable without probability, and “everything is fine with it.” The greatest plausibility was achieved by the author of “The Adventures of Telemachus”, who “connected the whole and parts with subtle and precise comparisons, which one nature diligently observes in all his works.” Since the poet’s task is to teach the truth, verisimilitude permeates all aspects of the work: “The action will be probable and like truth in the procession, just as it is true in its very essence.” Interesting in this regard are Trediakovsky’s remarks regarding Sumarokov’s tragedy “Khorev”: “We don’t argue, tragic love is a joke; however, the tragic author, as if presenting an important matter, should not have called it a joke; for they know that everything in tragedy is feigned, but they consider it to be an important truth.”

A rigoristically consistent application of the principle of verisimilitude led him to a negative assessment of rhyme. At the beginning of his poetic activity, Trediakovsky believed that “rhyme makes our poems the greatest beauty.” He saw in it a certain semantic content, prohibiting the alternation of male and female rhymes. Later, in the early 50s, Trediakovsky began to resolutely deny the need to use rhyme, believing that it deprives a poetic work of the necessary verisimilitude. In 1752, he pointed out that “rhyme is not essential to poetry, but merely an extraneous decoration used to delight the ear.”

The rhyme arose in “barbarian times,” but in the classical era it was unused. Trediakovsky demanded to turn to true antiquity, free from the layers of the “Gothic” era. Reasonable verisimilitude determines the possibility of using rhyme: “The use of rhyme in general should be such that reason is always preferred: that is, so that when composing a verse, one should always try more to focus on the pure meaning in it than on rich rhyme; It will be impossible for both of them to be together, so that for the richness of the rhyme the solid meaning should never be neglected.”

Rhyme, he writes in the preface to Tilemakhide, interferes with the majestic and smooth flow of the syllable in the heroic poem.

Rhyme is a threshold on the path of this flow:

“Adolescent rhyme agreement is a toy unworthy of men’s rumors.” “Natural and primary versification” (i.e., verse of Russian folklore) was rhymeless.

It is especially important to observe the principle of verisimilitude and decorum in dramatic works: “A dramatic poem must be completely similar to nature throughout the word,” therefore, “the effort to incessant rhyme infinitely diminishes the heat and zeal of the dramatic poem.” The basis of the dramaturgy is the conversation of the characters - and “is it natural to have that conversation that incessantly ends with a female rhyme, like the sea on a mountain, and a male rhyme, like alas widows,” Trediakovsky ironizes. “Indecent” rhyme and ode.

On the question of the role of rhyme in the creation of a natural syllable, Trediakovsky’s position was shared by Sumarokov and Kantemir. Sumarokov was proud of the fact that he had the opportunity to write an entire tragedy in rhymeless verse: “I promised to compose a tragedy without rhyme. We have had better success with this type of writing than perhaps the French; but who, without insight, will believe that composing poetry without rhymes is even more difficult than with rhymes?

The word put in place of rhyme must be as strong as the rhyme, and this requires a very skillful writer.” Cantemir consciously preferred blank verse. Explaining that in writing poetry one can do without rhyme, he cited Trissino’s poem “Liberated Italy”, Milton’s poem “Paradise Lost”, and his own translations of Horace and Anacreon as examples.

Sumarokov makes the use of rhyme dependent on the general content:

The opinion of the French theorist of the 18th century is aphoristically expressive. J.B. Dubos on rhyme, coinciding with Trediakovsky’s thoughts: “In the works of a simple rhyme-weaver you will never find a real imitation of nature”; “rhyme, like duels and feudal estates, owes its origin to the barbarity of our ancestors.”

It should not be that it (rhyme - A.S.) takes our thought captive, But that it should be our slave.

There is no need to chase after her without memory:

It must meet itself in our minds.

Russian classicists came to a common conclusion - it is not formal aspects that determine the creation of a poetic image, but “reasonable” verisimilitude. And in this they are unanimous with Western European poetry theorists. The question of rhyme was part of the famous dispute between the “ancients” and the “moderns” in France, during which the problem was posed whether it was possible to translate ancient authors into prose, or whether they should be translated into verse. C. Perrault, W. de Lamotte, Fenelon, Dubos, Montesquieu advocated the advantages of prose; Voltaire was a witty defender of the rights of verse. If verse and rhyme do not constitute the basic condition of poetry, then what can be its essence is a question that remains unresolved by the middle of the 18th century.

The problems of verisimilitude included the question of the “wonderful” in poetry. He received his concretization during a discussion of how appropriate and decent it is for a poet of modern times to use images of ancient mythology and the Christian religion. And again, the decisive criterion becomes the principle of plausibility: the author can “introduce a lot of extraordinary things, but in such a way that these extraordinary things seem probable in every possible way from the similarity to the truth connected with them.”

“Fictional wonders and passions” must have the appearance of truth, since the reader perceives what seems incredible or monstrous “with annoyance and disgust, since the realm of poetry is the possible and probable, there is always a danger of falling into “extreme miraculousness.” Trediakovsky very sensitively noted all cases of inaccurate use of “wonderful” by Sumarokov: he considers the words “let Homer multiply the gods” to be “false in thought” and “ungodly in reason” and proposes to replace them with an allegorical expression. A violation of “decency” was also the place in Sumarokov’s works where it was said that Neptune “hands over his scepter” to Peter I: “Is it fitting that a filthy god should be brought here from a Christian writer and hand over his scepter to the most orthodox sovereign” (35, 378 ). He condemned Sumarokov for the fact that his tritons sing songs to Peter I. In these statements, Trediakovsky contradicts his earlier position of 1735, when he explained that “through Apolline we should understand the heart desire that I have for science to flourish in Russia poetic." “But by the way,” he explained, “everything in it (in “Epistole to Apollin” - A.S.) no matter how it is written, is in a poetic way, which skilled people know quite well; Therefore, for Christians who are zealous for our piety, there is no reason for temptation here.” No less eloquent is his interpretation of the word Cupid at that time: “The word Cupid should not be a temptation to give reasons for cruel virtue to a Christian, since it is not taken here for the filthy Venus’s fictitious son, but for the passion of the heart, which in lawful love and for its great ardor is blasphemous to be never deserved it anywhere.”

The internal inconsistency of Trediakovsky’s views on the problem of the “miraculous,” which consisted in a simultaneous desire for both allegorization and enrichment of poetic imagery, is finally removed only in the 60s in the preface to “Tilemakhida”: “People are amazed inwardly by the depiction of passions and are aroused into mobility by miraculousness ”, and since a person is “by nature a lover of the extraordinary,” he “seeks to satiate himself with dreams that agree with his wishes.” If earlier Trediakovsky, condemning Sumarokov for the incorrect use of mythological images, contradicted the theory of Boileau, who proved their right to exist in poetry, then in 1766 he tried to emphasize his unity with him in denying the images of Christian saints, so often used in Baroque poetry. According to the researcher of French classicism S.S. Mokulsky, “Boileau fundamentally contrasted the miracles of ancient mythology with the miracles of the Christian religion, which, in his opinion, are unsuitable for depiction in poetry, because they are incomprehensible from the point of view of reason, and only what is understandable can be the object of poetry ".

Trediakovsky repeatedly insisted on the need to subordinate the miraculous to the plausible: an epic action “should be miraculous, but probable,” since “we are not surprised at what seems to us to be impossible.” The dignity of Fenelon’s works lies precisely in the fact that he, “moving away from the knots common to modern romances or fictional stories,” “did not get bogged down in extreme wonder.” Trediakovsky is ironic about the images of folklore: “horses speak”, “tripod tables walk”, “fighting clubs of a hundred pounds”, “thrown over the clouds and from that height falling on the Iroic head.” Trediakovsky tried to connect the miraculous with the principle of imitation of nature, declaring it a special type of fiction. The classicist must always remember the requirement of reasonable verisimilitude: “Piit should never annoy the mind, although it sometimes goes beyond the limits of nature.”

Lomonosov also joined the general conversation about the miraculous, who in the theory of fiction often combined two issues: the creation of a poetic image as a result of the poet’s imagination and the peculiarities of “inventing the miraculous.” Like Trediakovsky, Lomonosov put forward the requirement of reasonable verisimilitude: “one must try so that from the combination of these (“simple ideas.” - A.S.) natural thoughts that agree with reason arise, and not forced or false and absurd”, only common sense the reasoning in this case is valid.” In a note to the manuscript of rhetoric of 1747, he was critical of the German Baroque poet G. H. Lems, who, as can be seen from the quotes given by Lomonosov, clearly violated the classicist requirement of “decent” in the use and semantic content of metaphors.

Sumarokov, in his epistle on poetry, also focused on the problem of the miraculous.

Noting that the epic verse is “full of pretense” and that “in it virtue boldly passes into deity, accepting spirit and body,” he specifically focused on the meaning of mythological personifications as an arsenal of allegorically expressive images:

Minerva is wisdom in him, Diana is purity, Love is Cupid, Venus is beauty.

Where there is thunder and lightning, there Angry Zeus proclaims rage and terrifies the earth.

When there is a commotion and roar in the seas, It is not the wind that makes noise, but Neptune shows anger.

And this is not a sound that repeats the voices, It is the Nymph who remembers Narcissus through her tears.

Thus, on the question of the role, meaning and limits of the use of the miraculous in poetic creativity, Russian classicists took largely similar positions.

The question of the miraculous and the probable, the plausible and the natural is resolved exclusively in the humanitarian aspect; religious considerations, which were still so important for art 50-100 years ago, when the symbolic system of artistic thinking dominated, are not taken seriously. Russian classicists finally broke with the scholastic motivations of artistic creativity (including the depiction of certain events and characters), which indicates the dominance of a new, secular worldview in Russian literature of the 18th century.

In medieval ideas about art, it is difficult to find a logical basis for the problem of depicting the miraculous, since all the particular problems of ideology and art were directly dependent on the dominant theocentric view of things:

God is “wonderful” in all his creatures. At that time, the truth of judgment was based not on what was revealed to immediate consciousness, but on divine authority.

Independent poetic truth is alien to the medieval artistic consciousness.

A new attitude to the problem of the “miraculous” arises in the Renaissance. Since, within the framework of the theory of imitation of Nature, there is no object or phenomenon of reality that would represent a miracle in itself, then, according to humanists, the “miraculous” is ancient mythology. The images of the pagan pantheon were declared fictitious, since if they were seriously presented in art, the public could accept and believe in their supernatural existence.

The “reason” of the classicists excludes Christian miracles as the subject of depiction of art; it even recognizes the ancient gods only in the form of allegories.

Christian miracles, like magic and witchcraft, cross borders natural phenomena, they are impossible in reality, implausible in their supernatural nature, testifying to the arbitrariness of the imagination. Boileau in Canto III of “Poetic Art” sharply denies the artistic expediency and significance of epics, which are based on a plot from Christian history. The Christian “miraculous” is mysterious and cannot be reproduced in a sensually plausible form. In pagan mythology, for all the exclusivity of the acting characters, there is no mystery and internal logical contradictions. The actions of the heroes and exceptional individuals of ancient authors are hypothetically plausible, just as the conversation of animals in a fable is plausible despite its unthinkability in reality.

“The miraculous” in the doctrine of classicism had the meaning of conditional verisimilitude; externally it existed within the framework of imitation of nature, but internally it was an admission of fantasy under the guise of mythological images. “Miraculous” is a rationalized use of mythology. If the mythology of the ancients presupposed the specific use of “miraculous” characters and situations, then for the classicists they were only allegories.

Sumarokov addressed the problem of fiction and imitation, based on the requirements of simplicity and naturalness of artistic representation. His thesis - “nature is higher than art” - directly led to the assertion of the cognitive significance of poetry: “Petic expressions and their images, although they are fictitious, serve the knowledge of nature.” Naturalness for Sumarokov is the main condition for artistry. In the article “On Unnaturalness,” he sharply condemned and ridiculed those poets who follow “the only rules (so! - A.S.), and sometimes the only desire to crawl to Helikon, without at all entering into passion,” who “write only what intellectuality or ignorance says, without asking the heart,” as a result of which such “unthoughtful rhymers” do not have the convenience of imitating the simplicity of nature, which is the most difficult thing for a writer, although the simplicity of nature seems easy from afar.” For Sumarokov, clarity of image is the most important aesthetic criterion.

Sumarokov develops the thoughts of Descartes and Boileau that the clarity and distinctness of a poetic image are essential signs of truth. Naturalness and clarity are necessary prerequisites for the moralistic influence of art. If nature and art are identical in goodness and beauty, then poetic paintings must directly express the inherent perfection in reality. The inexorable logic of things, the natural course of events, being purified in art from random layers, must be forcibly recreated in the perceiving consciousness of the public. But the naturalness of art is the result of great creative efforts that are designed to ensure required degree clarity. Art and reality, within the framework of the theory of imitation, exist in unity. Sumarokov’s fiction does not oppose the truth of reality and the truth of history: “Fiction almost excites heroic souls to imitation, just like history. Based on fiction, “peaceful expressions... serve the knowledge of nature, aversion from vices... and often they have more success than the preached morality.”

Fiction is only able to help the poet achieve the authenticity of the image when it is believable. The poet should not blindly obey the play of the imagination, since his fantasy should always be contained within the strict framework of nature.

This limitation of fiction by the requirements of naturalness did not lead Sumarokov to ignore the specifics of poetic creativity: “Logicians deduce their cases with solid conclusions, physicists with experiments, mathematicians with calculations,” and “poets are allowed to depict what seems to be true.” And further: “How many philosophers have composed poetic systems!.. There is such a difference between a poet and a physicist as there is between a mythologist and a historian.”

Sumarokov no less clearly formulates the thesis that imitation of nature in art has great cognitive significance: “And even if there were no other benefits from the free ones, it is enough that we refine our minds with them and show our advantage over other creatures, becoming like the imitation of nature to the creator, feeding our imaginations, expanding the concepts and strength of the majesty of our souls by swimming in the subtlest knowledge of nature.”

By issuing a document called a ship's radio station license. In large companies... "PETROLEUM AND GAS UNIVERSITY" ophj`g 08/11/2015 No. 3456 O/P About enrollment In o...” it is necessary to pay as much attention as possible to the education of the teenager’s personality. References 1. Akopov G.V. Methods for the prevention of suicidal behavior. Samara-Ulyanovsk, 2005.2. Aron R. Stages once...” action). In 1896, it was proposed by E. Lewis (USA). A barter transaction is the exchange of goods and services directly without monetary participation. Basorama advertising panel with backlight...”

« Question 1. Social subject. psych., main points of view. The relationship between social psycho. with general psychology, sociology and other sciences. Having arisen at the junction of psycho. And social, social psycho. retains its special status. The main reason This is the existence of a class of facts of social life that can only be studied with the help of psychology. and social...."

« Lunar calendar Lunar calendar of a gardener for April 2016 April picks up water and opens flowers. April is good time to graft trees. At this time, fruit trees and shrubs must also be treated against wintering pests. In April, they continue to care for tomato and pepper seedlings and carry out their peaks...”

Mental functions of a person.2. Requirements for the student’s level of preparation, s...” circumstances, a new goal. For example, this happens when a driver encounters an unexpected situation during an emergency stop of the car engine...”

« Peptide complex AC-6 (thymus peptides) – stimulates tissue regeneration processes, synthesis of tissue-specific proteins, proliferative and metabolic activity of cells, accelerating the renewal of cells in various tissues, activating the functions of cells with...”

« GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION of June 27, 2014 No. 589 MOSCOW On approval of the charter of the federal state budgetary institution Russian Academy of Sciences The Government of the Russian Federation decrees: 1. Approve the attached charter of the federal state budgetary institution of the Russian...”

« Olympiad "Star" Talents in the service of defense and security" in the RUSSIAN LANGUAGE grades 10-11 (full-time round) OPTION I Part I Task 1. Divide the adjectives below into three groups according to..."

Pre-classicism

Reforms of Peter I

Handwritten stories

Love verses

Theater and dramaturgy

Feofan Prokopovich

The formation of Russian classicism

A. D. Kantemir

V. K. Trediakovsky

M. V. Lomonosov

A. P. Sumarokov

The development of Russian classicism and the beginning of its fundamental changes

Magazine satire 1769-1774. N. I. Novikov

I. A. Krylov

Drama of the 60-90s of the 18th century.

D. I. Fonvizin

N. P. Nikolev

Ya. B. Knyazhnin

V. V. Kapnist

M. M. Kheraskov

V. I. Maikov

I. F. Bogdanovich

G.R.Derzhavin

Mass prose literature of the late 18th century.

Sentimentalism

A. N. Radishchev

N. M. Karamzin

I. I. Dmitriev

Synchronicity of Russian literature of the 18th century.

Application

The textbook is written in accordance with the program for the course on the history of Russian literature of the 18th century. (M., 1990). It reflects the principles of the internal development of literary trends and movements of the 18th century. The textbook is intended for undergraduate and graduate students of philological faculties of universities.

In connection with the unexpected and sudden death of the author - professor of the Department of History of Russian Literature of Moscow University P. A. Orlov, the text of the manuscript was brought to the final stage by an employee of this department, Associate Professor A. A. Smirnov, who brought it into line with modern scientific data and added control questions that expand students’ understanding of the development of Russian literature, compiled a synchronistic table designed to systematize students’ historical and philological knowledge.

Pavel Aleksandrovich Orlov (1922-1990) - a prominent specialist in the history of Russian literature, Doctor of Philology, author of the major monograph “Russian Sentimentalism” (M., 1977). This book is the fruit of scientific research and methodological developments of the author, his many years of teaching activity at the Department of History of Russian Literature of Moscow State University, where the textbook received its first approval.

The department expresses gratitude to the Gorky State University. N.I. Lobachevsky (Head of the Department of Russian Literature, Professor G.V. Moskvicheva) and the Head of the Department of Russian Literature of Tomsk State University, Doctor of Philology, Professor F. Z. Kanunova, as well as the Head of the Department of Russian Literature of the 18th Century. Institute of Lithuanian Academy of Sciences of the USSR to the candidate of philological sciences N.D. Kochetkova for a number of important clarifications of the dates of life and work of writers of the 18th century.

Department staff

INTRODUCTION

The eighteenth century opens a new page in the history of Russian fiction. The changes that have taken place in it in just a few decades can be compared in their importance to such events as the advent of writing and the emergence of critical realism. In the literary process, there are always two interrelated trends: continuity and innovation. Each of them is unthinkable without the other, but the relationship between them in different eras is not the same. In the 18th century a radical renewal of all spheres of social and spiritual life, including literature, was required. The historical boundary between old and new Russia was reforms. Peter I, which affected a wide variety of areas of policy of the Russian state, including the ideological sphere. A culture was born that was sharply different from its predecessor. Seven and a half centuries of ancient Russian writing created works for which the highest authority lay in religious beliefs and ideas. “The dogmas of the church,” Engels wrote about medieval ideology, “became at the same time political axioms, and biblical texts received in any case the force of law... This supreme dominance of theology in all areas of mental activity was at the same time a necessary consequence of the situation that occupied by the church as the most general synthesis and the most general sanction of the existing feudal system."

The reforms of Peter I undermined the authority of the church in the political life of the country, which, in turn, affected fiction, which became a purely secular art. Lives, apocrypha, sermons, chronicles and military stories are replaced by ode, satire, comedy, tragedy, poem, novel. This kind of renewal of almost the entire genre system of literature testified to profound changes in social thought itself. The secularization of consciousness also had an impact on the literary language; its basis became not Church Slavonic, but Russian. Church Slavonicisms are now used as style-forming means mainly in the so-called high genres. Innovations also penetrate into the field of poetry. The syllabic system, inherited from the 17th century, is being replaced by a new type of versification - syllabic-tonic. In their searches, Russian writers used the experience of Western European authors. “Russia entered Europe,” wrote Pushkin, “like a deflated ship, with the sound of an ax and the thunder of cannons... European enlightenment landed on the shores of the conquered Neva... A new literature, the fruit of a newly formed society, was soon to be born.” But this was not imitation, not copying, but a bold, creative development of someone else’s secular heritage. Progress in art, as in science, is always achieved as a result of joint efforts different nations. Any isolation leads to stagnation and lag. The renewal of Russian literature proceeded intensively and rapidly. The path from classicism to romanticism, which in France lasted more than a century and a half, was completed in Russia in eighty years. Of course, such drastic changes could not immediately bring the desired results.

In its historical development, Russian literature of the 18th century. went through three stages. The first begins in 1700 and continues until the end of the 20s. Basically it coincides with the reign of Peter I. It can be called pre-classical. The works of this period are distinguished by great genre and stylistic diversity and are in many ways still connected with the previous period. Neither a general creative method nor a harmonious genre system had yet been developed, but the main ideological prerequisites of Russian classicism were already ripening in it: the protection of state interests, the glorification of Peter I as an “enlightened” monarch. During this period, interest in ancient culture, an important component of the new artistic system, increased significantly.

The next stage dates back to the 30-50s of the 18th century. This is the time of the formation of Russian classicism. Its founders - Kantemir, Trediakovsky, Lomonosov, Sumarokov - belong entirely to the eighteenth century. They were born in the Peter the Great era, from childhood they breathed its air and with their creativity they strive to protect and approve Peter’s reforms in the years following the death of Peter I. Radical transformations are taking place in literature. New classic genres are being created, literary language and versification are being reformed, and theoretical treatises appearing to substantiate these innovations. But for now these are just the first steps of Russian classicism.

The final stage is associated with the final four decades of the 18th century. In the 60-90s, educational ideology began to play a major role. Under her influence, Russian classicism rises to a new level of its ideological and artistic development. Representatives of the second generation of Russian classicism were Fonvizin, Derzhavin, Knyazhnin, Kapnist. But the time of the heyday of classicism was at the same time the time of the beginning of its transformation. On the same educational basis, parallel to classicism in the last third of the 18th century. Another direction is emerging - sentimentalism. It originated in the 60s and reached its apogee in the 90s in the works of Radishchev and Karamzin.

PRE-CLASSICISM

Reforms of Peter I

History of Russia in the 18th century. opens with the reforms of Peter I. The transformations carried out by him were caused by urgent tasks that arose before the Russian state at the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries. For trade and defensive purposes, Russia had to reach its natural borders - the shores of the Baltic and Black Seas. Meanwhile, in the west and south it was threatened by strong and dangerous neighbors: Sweden, Poland, Turkey and Persia. It was necessary to quickly eliminate the gap with advanced European countries in the military, economic and cultural fields. Therefore, factories and manufactories were opened, a fleet was built, and a regular army was created. State administration itself was also reorganized: instead of the boyar duma and orders, the Senate and subordinate collegiums were established.

The question of the qualities that determine the dignity of a person and his place in society is being addressed in a new way. Boyar privileges are abolished. Promotion now depends not on the antiquity of the family, but on personal merits of a nobleman, from his intelligence, knowledge, zeal. In 1722, a “table of ranks” was introduced. All ranks, both civilian and military, were divided into 14 degrees, or ranks. Compulsory service for all began at the lowest, 14th rank. Further advancement in ranks was made directly dependent on each individual’s personal success. Peter himself did not do himself any favors, either, starting his service with the rank of drummer and ending it with the rank of generalissimo.

A number of events were carried out by Peter I in the church area. In 1721 the patriarchate was destroyed. Instead, a spiritual college is created - the Holy Governing Synod. A special civilian was introduced into the synod - the chief prosecutor. Thus, the church and its actions became completely dependent on the government. To clearly differentiate secular and church literature, a civil font was introduced, after which only theological and liturgical books were printed in the old font.

Radical changes have occurred in the field of education and science. In pre-Petrine Rus', education was of a purely ecclesiastical nature and was designed for the training of the clergy and a few government officials. At the beginning of the 18th century. the picture changes dramatically. The Moscow Zaikonospasskoe School is being transformed into the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. Much attention is paid to the study of ancient languages: Greek and Latin. Education in the overwhelming majority of educational institutions is distinguished by a pronounced secular and even professional character. The country needed engineers, doctors, builders, and sailors. For this purpose, an engineering school was opened in Moscow in 1712. Here, at the military hospital, the first medical school in Russia is being created. In 1715, the Maritime Academy was organized in St. Petersburg. “Digital” schools are appearing in many cities. Textbooks are written for educational needs. Magnitsky and Kopievsky were the authors of “Arithmetic”, Polikarpov - “Grammar”. Old letter designation numbers was replaced by Arabic numerals. ABC books appear. Various scientific activities are carried out. A special expedition is being organized to survey the natural resources of Russia. Compiled geographic Maps, including the Caspian Sea. Bering is tasked with determining whether there is a strait between Asia and America. By order of Peter, the Kunstkamera was opened in St. Petersburg, where minerals, ancient weapons, clothing, and dishes were exhibited. Shortly before his death, Peter drew up a project for organizing the Academy of Sciences in Russia, which opened after his death. Foreign, mainly German, scientists were invited to work on it. To train domestic personnel, a gymnasium and a university were created at the Academy of Sciences.

New trends powerfully invaded not only the state and scientific fields, but also sometimes forcibly into the everyday life of the nobility, into their way of life. Long-skirted clothing is replaced by kaftans, sewn according to European fashion. A special tax was imposed for wearing a beard. The house-building order of the towers is being destroyed. Young women and girls are required to appear in society. For this purpose, so-called assemblies were organized in private homes, where young people of both sexes met. There was dancing in the main room. In the neighboring rooms they played chess and cards, and smoked pipes. The norms of behavior were regulated by a special “polites”, for violation of which appropriate punishments were imposed.

Guides are published designed to teach the rules of good manners. Thus, in the book “An Honest Mirror of Youth,” young people were given numerous pieces of advice: how to behave with parents, guests, servants, how to sit at the dinner table, use cutlery, etc. In another manual, “Butts, how to write Compliments” contains samples of letters: official, intimate, congratulatory, “regretful” and other content. From the end of 1702, the first newspaper in Russia, Vedomosti, began to be published, which had an informational and propaganda character. Brief notices contained information about Russia's latest successes in the economic, military and diplomatic fields.

New trends have also affected the fine arts. IN Ancient Rus' painting was represented only by icons, and only in the 17th century. so-called “parsuns” appear, i.e. portraits. The painting technique is being improved. Tempera paint is replaced by oil paint, which opens up immeasurably greater possibilities for artists. Talented painters appeared - A. Matveev, I. M. Nikitin. By order of Peter I, Nikitin was sent to Italy, where he studied with the best professors. Peter was pleased with his success and wrote that “there are good masters among our people.” Nikitin's brushes include portraits of members of the royal family, representatives of the Russian aristocracy. He was also commissioned to depict Peter I on his deathbed. In addition to portraits, Nikitin painted two battle paintings - an image of the Poltava and Kulikovo battles.

Serious changes are taking place in architecture. The ancient capital of the Russian state, Moscow, was decorated with churches, cathedrals, and monasteries. In the new capital, St. Petersburg, military and administrative buildings were erected - the Peter and Paul Fortress, the Admiralty, the building of twelve colleges. The music of Peter the Great’s time is also distinguished by its secular character: marches, victorious patriotic “cants,” dance melodies. Literature of the first third of the 18th century. - a complex, contradictory phenomenon. Having emerged at a turning point in Russian history, it bears the imprint of two eras with a predominance of new trends. It is connected with Old Russian literature by the handwritten method of distribution and the anonymous nature of most works, the syllabic system of versification, and some traditional genres: the everyday story, school drama, panegyric, sermon. At the same time, in this motley, disordered literary material, ideological and artistic phenomena are formed that prepare Russian classicism. Among them, it should be noted the clearly expressed state pathos of many works. The idea of ​​the state as the highest value was persistently promoted at this time in government documents, orders and letters of Peter I. A person’s behavior was determined by the degree of his usefulness to society. Fiction actively supported these ideas. The image of Peter I occupies an important place in it. Folk songs are composed about him, school dramas and church sermons are dedicated to him. Thus, the theme of enlightened absolutism, characteristic of classicism, was gradually prepared. At this time, ancient culture began to play a significant role. A translation of Aesop's fables is published, illustrations to Ovid's "Metamorphoses" are published with brief explanations, and the medieval "History of the Ruin of the City of Troy" is published. On the stage of a foreign theater in Moscow, plays are staged, the heroes of which were Alexander the Great, Scipio Africanus, and Julius Caesar. In 1725, the work of the ancient Greek writer Apollodorus, “The Library, or About the Gods,” was published, which contained a retelling of almost all ancient mythological stories. In 1705, as one of the guides for painting and poetry, a book called “Symbola et emblemata” was published, containing 840 allegorical paintings - “symbols” and aphoristic inscriptions for them - “emblems”. Subsequently, this kind of symbolism will be widely used, especially in odes, by classic writers.

Handwritten stories

In the first decades of the 18th century. Handwritten everyday stories, known in Rus' since the 17th century, continue to spread. But under the influence of Peter’s reforms, significant changes took place in their content. One of these works was “The History of the Russian sailor Vasily Koriotsky and the beautiful princess Irakli of the Florensky land.” With the word “history,” the unknown author emphasized the genuine, non-fictional nature of his narrative. The hero of the story, Vasily Koriotsky, is a young nobleman, a representative of the class on which Peter I primarily relied in his transformations. The author endows him with hard work, curiosity, resourcefulness, and fearlessness. The plot of the “history” absorbed a number of motifs drawn from handwritten stories of the 17th century, including the story of the nobleman Dolthorn, as well as motifs from a folk tale. But the author managed to introduce topical content for the Petrine era into these traditional forms.

First of all, the traditional theme of “fathers and sons” is addressed in a new way. In the stories of the 17th century. about Misfortune, about Savva Grudtsyn, the parental home was declared the custodian of not only material, but also moral values. The break with him led the hero to complete life collapse. A rethinking takes place in the story of Vasily Koriotsky traditional theme. The parental home is going bankrupt, and a representative of the younger generation acts as its savior. Vasily becomes a sailor. This choice was dictated by the new political situation, when Russia, having recaptured the shores of the Baltic Sea, became a major maritime power. Unlike many young nobles who were burdened by service, Vasily fulfills all the assignments offered to him with great willingness and diligence and wins the love of his comrades and the respect of his superiors. Vasily’s trip to Holland was also marked by a feature of the times. Here, at the shipyards, Peter I himself mastered shipbuilding.

The story reflects the growth in the early 18th century. the international prestige of Russia, which the author calls “Russian Europes,” i.e., a country that has joined the circle of European states. The ruler of Austria - the “Tsar” - with honor receives Vasily - a simple Russian sailor - in the palace and provides him with all kinds of
help. The love theme is also interpreted in a new way. In the stories of the 17th century. love is generally considered a sinful emotion. Suffice it to recall Savva Grudtsyn, who is helped by a demon in his love affairs. In the story of Vasily Koriotsky, love is ennobled. She forces the hero, in order to save Iraklia, the daughter of the “Floren” king, to neglect danger and risk his life. The dizzying transformation of the sailor Vasily into the king also conveys the originality of the Peter the Great era, which favored the promotion of persons of humble origin. The rootless Menshikov became, in the words of Pushkin, a “semi-sovereign ruler.” Pastor Gluck's maid Marta Skavronskaya became the Russian Empress Catherine I. The language of the story also bears the stamp of novelty. It widely included popular expressions of Peter the Great’s Russia: “marching”, “commanding”, “term”, “to frunt”, “dismissing”, etc.

A slightly different version of the fate of a young nobleman of Peter the Great’s time is presented by “The History of the Brave Russian Cavalier Alexander and His Lovers Tyra and Eleanor,” written, according to G.N. Moiseeva, between 1719 and 1725. Unlike Vasily Koriotsky, Alexander - the son of wealthy parents, therefore his departure from home is motivated by the desire to receive an education worthy of a nobleman. “...I ask you to teach me,” he declares, “equally with others like you, for through your withholding you can inflict eternal reproach on me. And what can I call myself and what can I boast about! Not only to boast, but I won’t even be worthy of being called a nobleman.” Unfortunately, Alexander’s behavior is not distinguished by the single-mindedness of Vasily Koriotsky. Arriving in France, instead of studying, he gives himself to love interests. Noteworthy is the abundance of heroines in the story - Alexander's mistresses. Each of them is endowed with a special character: touching, defenseless Eleanor; determined, aggressive Hedwig-Dorothea; loyal and patient Tyra. Of interest is the peculiar debate about female virtue that three foreign noblemen conduct among themselves. The increased attention to the “women’s issue” is explained primarily by the changed position of the Russian woman, who, having left the tower, entered society and aroused increased interest in herself,

The story about the nobleman Alexander reflected the influence of a wide variety of sources. In the first place among them is a love-adventure novel, including “The Tale of Peter the Golden Keys.” The love-adventure tragedy is especially felt in the second part of the story. Alexander and Tyra, fleeing from their ill-wishers, end up in Egypt, China and even Florida, where, according to the author, “man-eaters,” that is, cannibals, lived. During their wanderings, the hero and heroine are separated and still find each other. At the end of the story, Alexander’s frivolity and love inconstancy receive a peculiar, albeit purely accidental, retribution. Just before returning to Russia, he drowned while swimming in the sea.

The fate of Alexander complements our information about the Russian nobles of the first quarter of the 18th century. Among them were people like Vasily Koriotsky, who consistently and selflessly fulfilled their civic duty. At the same time, there were also people of a different type who, once abroad, succumbed to all sorts of temptations. It is precisely this type that is depicted in the “history” of the nobleman Alexander.

Under the influence of the first part of the story about the nobleman Alexander, “The Tale of the Merchant John” arose. This work reflected the changes that took place in the merchant environment. Unlike the merchants of pre-Petrine Rus', John’s father conducts extensive trade with the West and himself sends his son to Paris to gain experience in trading matters. As in the “story” about Alexander, the plot of the story is connected with the hero’s love interest. However, the story about John is distinguished by its calm and even humorous content. There are no bloody, dramatic episodes or loud, pathetic phrases in it. It reflected the practical business thinking of the trading environment, to which, apparently, the author himself belonged.

Love verses

Love lyrics in pre-Petrine Rus' were represented only by folk songs. The reforms of the beginning of the century favored the emancipation of the individual, freeing him from church and home care. The communication of young people at assemblies and the free expression of feelings of love created a need for intimate lyrics. The spread of literacy made this task easier. Thus, along with folk songs, handwritten love verses are created, influenced by European book literature. Love verses were written in both syllabic and tonic verses, borrowed from folklore and German poetry. Love poems were composed, for example, by Peter I's adjutant Willim Mons, his secretary Stoletov and a number of other noble persons. The authors of love works could be not only men, but [also] women. Most of the love verses remained anonymous. Their content, as a rule, was minor. Unknown poets complained bitterly about the painful suffering that love causes them, or about the circumstances that prevent them from uniting with a loved one. Artistic images were drawn from both oral and book poetry. From ancient mythology came Cupida (i.e. Cupid), Fortune, Venus. “Fortune is evil that you do this, //It’s almost like you’re separating me from my sweetheart,” we read in one of the poems. “Oh, what great joy have I found: //Cupid brought mercy to Venus,” says another work. "Arrows" piercing the hearts of lovers are often mentioned. Suffering caused by love is likened to physical torment, compared to a “wound” or “ulcer,” while love itself is compared to fire that burns the “heart” and even the “womb” of the lover. All these images, which later became literary templates, were then perceived as a truly poetic discovery.

Theater and dramaturgy

Theatrical performances appeared in Russia in the 17th century, under the father of Peter I, Alexei Mikhailovich. But the theater of that time served only for the amusement of the royal court. Peter set him a completely different task. In an era of almost universal illiteracy, the theater was supposed to become a source of knowledge, a propagandist for the policies pursued by the state. For this purpose, the German entrepreneur Johann Kunst was invited to Russia in 1702 with a troupe of artists. By order of Peter, a wooden building was built on Red Square - a “theater temple”. To prepare Russian artists, clerks from various orders were assigned to Kunst’s troupe. Each of them was entitled to a salary corresponding to the importance of the assigned role. Entrance prices to the theater were low. Its doors were open to everyone. In 1703, Kunst died, and his work was continued until 1707 by a resident of the German settlement in Moscow, Otto Furst. The repertoire of the Kunst Theater consisted of the so-called “English comedies”, brought from England to Germany at the end of the 16th century. traveling actors. These plays were dramatizations of chivalric romances, historical legends, fairy tales, and short stories, which were extremely helpless in dramatic terms. The game was played in an exaggerated manner. The characters shouted pathetic monologues and gesticulated desperately. Bloody scenes coexisted with crude buffoonery. The indispensable character of the play was a comic character, called “stupid person” in Russia, and Pickelgering or Hanswurst in Germany. The partially preserved repertoire of the Kunst Theater includes the following plays: “About Don Jan and Don Pedre” - one of the many adaptations of the plot about Don Juan, “About the Grubston fortress, in which the first person is Alexander the Great”, “The Honest Traitor, or Friederico von Popley and Aloysia, his wife”, “Two conquered cities, in which the first person is Julius Caesar”, “Prince Pickelgering, or Jodelette, his very own prisoner” - a reworking of the comedy by Thomas Corneille, which in turn goes back to one from Calderon's comedies, "About the Beaten Doctor" - a reworking of Moliere's play "The Reluctant Doctor".

The Kunst-Fürst Theater did not live up to the hopes of Peter I, who once said that he would like to see “a touching play, without this love, pasted in everywhere... and a cheerful farce without buffoonery.” . In terms of their content, Kunst’s performances were very far from Russian reality and, for this reason, could not explain or promote Peter’s events. A serious drawback of these plays was their language; the speech of the characters looked especially helpless in love or pathetic remarks.
And at the same time, the plays of the Kunst Theater played their positive role. The theater moved from the palace to the square. He contributed to the emergence of theatrical translators and Russian artists in Rus'. The plays staged by Kunst helped to “secularize” dramatic art. They introduced the Russian audience to great historical figures, such as Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and the plots of plays by European playwrights, including Moliere, and thus fulfilled not only entertaining, but also educational tasks.

In the first quarter of the 18th century. In Russia, the so-called school theaters were preserved. One of them existed at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, the other was opened in Moscow, at the Hospital, which had its own medical school. The Hospital was headed by Nikolai Bidloo, a native of Holland. Created on Russian soil, these theaters more successfully fulfilled a task that was beyond the power of the Kunst Theater. They zealously explained and promoted the policies of Peter I. Allegorical plots and images dominated in the plays of the school theater. This dramaturgy does not know specific, real characters. The allegories were of two kinds: drawn from the Bible and having a completely secular character - Vengeance, Truth, Peace, Death, etc.

For better recognition, they were endowed with the appropriate attributes: Fortune - a wheel, Peace - an olive branch, Hope - an anchor, Wrath - a sword. In stage action, both in Russian and foreign plays, different types of arts were combined: recitation, singing, music and dance.

In 1705, Russian troops captured the Narva fortress and liberated the original Russian lands, illegally seized by Sweden. The response to this victory was the play “The Liberation of Livonia and Ingermanland”, staged at the Theological Academy. Political events were clothed in an allegorical plot about the withdrawal of the Israelites from Egypt by Moses. At the same time, secular allegorical images also appeared in the play. The main characters were Russian Jealousy, which meant Peter I, and Unrighteous Theft - Sweden. Their allegorical meaning was explained with the help of two emblematic images - the “double-headed” Eagle and the “pre-proud” Leo. There was a struggle between Jealousy and Theft, in which the Eagle and the Lion took part. Jealousy was winning. At the end of the play, Triumph laid a laurel wreath on Jealousy. The text of this play has not been preserved, only its lengthy program has been preserved. The events of the Northern War also prompted another play from the repertoire of the theological academy - “God's Humiliation of the Proud,” from which only the program has also been preserved. The immediate reason for its creation was the Battle of Poltava. As a biblical parallel unknown author The duel between the Israeli youth David and the Philistine warrior Goliath was reproduced. The image of David was associated with the Russian army, Goliath - with the Swedish. Characters familiar to us - the Eagle and the Lion - helped us decipher the allegories. The meaning of the events was explained by special inscriptions. One of them - “Chrome, but fierce” - referred to Leo and hinted at Charles XII, who was wounded in the leg on the eve of the Battle of Poltava.

The plays of the surgical school were also distinguished by their propaganda and political content. In 1824, “Russian Glory”, written by F. Zhuravsky, was staged on its stage. Peter I and his wife were present at the performance. The play was composed on the occasion of Catherine's coronation, but its content went beyond the scope of this event. The performance seemed to sum up the reign of Peter I. All the images in “Russian Glory” are allegorical, or, as stated in the program, represented by “fictitious persons.” These are either the names of countries, or abstract concepts - Wisdom, Truth, Reasoning. The content of the play is purely political and boils down to the fact that states that were previously hostile to Russia - Turkey, Sweden, Poland, Persia - recognize its glory and greatness. The performance ends with a solemn scene: along the path decorated with flowers, “Victoria of Russia is coming in triumph on lions.” . Closely related to “Russian Glory” is another dramatic work, “Sad Glory,” possibly written by the same Zhuravsky. The play was created in 1725 in connection with the death of Peter I. The first place is given to numerous glorious deeds that marked the reign of Peter: his victories at sea and on land, the enlightenment of the country, the founding of St. Petersburg and Kronstadt. Then mournful Russia announces the death of Peter and bitterly mourns his death. Russia's sadness is shared by other countries: Poland, Sweden, Persia. Thus, both works are very close to each other both in content and form. The main goal of the author was to glorify the activities of Peter I and the successes of the Russian state.

In the first decades of the 18th century. Amateur court theaters appeared. One of them was created in the village of Preobrazhenskoye near Moscow at the court of Peter I’s sister Natalya Alekseevna. The second is in Izmailovo in the palace of the Dowager Tsarina Praskovya Feodorovna, wife of the late Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich. The third - in Moscow, and then in St. Petersburg at the court of Princess Elizaveta Petrovna. The repertoire of Natalya Alekseevna’s theater was very colorful and eclectic. Along with the adaptation of everyday stories, dramatizations of secular adventurous stories were created here: “The Comedy of the Beautiful Melusine”, “The Comedy of Olundin”, “The Comedy of Peter of the Golden Springs”. The author of several plays was Natalya Alekseevna herself. Unlike poetic school dramas, all these plays are written in prose and devoid of allegorical images. Little information has been preserved about the theaters of Praskovya Fedorovna and Elizaveta Petrovna and their repertoire. However, it is known that one of the best plays of that time, “The Comedy about Count Farson,” is associated with Elizaveta Petrovna’s theater. Its beginning echoes the handwritten stories of the Peter the Great era. A young Frenchman, Count Farson, asks his parents to let him go “to foreign countries for a walk. And try to know foreigners there.” Subsequently, the plot of the “comedy” becomes very close to the plays of the Kunst Theater, where the love affair often ended in a dramatic denouement. Count Farson arrives in Portugal. The Portuguese queen noticed and fell in love with him. The successes of Count Farson aroused the envy of the senators, who managed to kill their dangerous favorite. The angry queen executes the senators and stabs herself with a sword.

The comedy is written in rhymed syllabic verses of varying lengths, which brings them closer to the raeshnik. The style of the play contrasts rude, sometimes vulgar remarks with mannered phrases designed for sophistication. So, in a verbal skirmish with the captain who insulted him, Count Farson declares: “Tut, that was invigorating! With my rod I will clear your snout. I’ll cut your lips so you can’t put them back together, where your teeth lie.” The queen’s love confession addressed to Farson has a completely different stylistic connotation: “Oh, my dear deomante. And a precious diamond!.. My mind is confused. Cupida happen to me.” Interludes between acts were filled with interludes. That's what they were called in school theaters short plays, performed in front of a closed curtain in the intervals between acts. The number of characters did not exceed three or four people.

Interludes were written in rhymed syllabic verse. The language of the characters well reproduced folk, often rude speech. Satirical interludes reflected the topical phenomena of the Petrine era. Thus, in one of the plays, “The Sexton and Sons,” they ridiculed the sexton who did not want to send his children to the seminary. The sexton tries to bribe the clerks. And they take a bribe, but take their sons away.

In the second half of the 18th century. sideshows gained independent existence along with other small comic plays.

Feofan Prokopovich (1681-1736)

In his transformative activities, Peter I sometimes tried to rely on the clergy, taking into account their influence on the masses. The reforms had an impact on some church ministers. One of them was the son of a Kyiv merchant, a talented preacher, public figure and writer Feofan Prokopovich. The transition period of the early 18th century was clearly reflected in Feofan’s personality and work. His belonging to the clergy class brings him closer to the writers of Ancient Rus'. After graduating from the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, he became a monk and was later ordained an archbishop. As a church minister, he composed and delivered sermons and achieved great success in this area.

But in his way of thinking, Feofan was far from mysticism and orthodoxy. His mind was distinguished by a critical bent; his nature required not faith, but evidence. Theophan's poem in Latin is remarkable, in which he reproaches the Pope for persecuting Galileo. Fluent in ancient languages, he reads ancient authors in the original. Along with theology, he is interested in the exact sciences - physics, arithmetic, geometry, which he taught at the Kyiv Academy. With his characteristic insight, Prokopovich quickly understood and appreciated the significance of Peter's reforms, with whom he was personally familiar. Feofan fully shared the king's thoughts on the need to spread education. In the dispute between secular and ecclesiastical authorities, he unconditionally sided with the government, causing a storm of indignation on the part of the clergy. In 1718, Peter instructed him to write a charter called the “Spiritual Regulations,” according to which the church was to be governed by a special board - the Synod. After the death of Peter, especially during the reign of Peter II, church reaction raised its head. A serious threat of reprisal hangs over Feofan. But he managed to rally around himself a small number of like-minded people - Tatishchev, Khrushchev, young Cantemir - into the so-called “Scientific Squad”. The members of the “squad” gained confidence in the new Empress Anna Ioannovna, and Feofan’s position was strengthened again.

Sermons occupy a prominent place in Prokopovich's work. He managed to give a new sound to this traditional church genre. Preaching in Ancient Rus' pursued mainly religious goals. Feofan subordinated it to pressing political tasks. Many of his speeches are dedicated to Peter's military victories, including the Battle of Poltava. He glorifies not only Peter, but also his wife Catherine, who accompanied her husband on the Prut campaign in 1711. In his speeches, Feofan talks about the benefits of education, the need to visit foreign countries, and admires St. Petersburg. Theophan's weapons in his sermons were reasoning, evidence, and in some cases a witty satirical word. His arguments in “A Word of Commendation about the Russian Navy” are interesting. “We will briefly discuss,” he writes, “how the Russian state itself needs and benefits the navy. And firstly, since this monarchy does not extend its borders to a single sea, how is it not dishonorable for it not to have a fleet? We will not find a single village in the world that is located above a river or lake and does not have boats. But if a glorious and strong monarchy... didn’t have ships... it would be dishonorable and reproachful. We stand over the water and watch how guests come and go to us, but we don’t know how to do it ourselves. Word for word, just like in poetic plots, a certain Tantalus stands in the water and thirsts.”

Prokopovich is also known as a playwright. He wrote the play “Vladimir” in 1705 for the school theater at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy. The content for it was the adoption of Christianity in 988 by the Kyiv prince Vladimir. The conflict of the drama is represented by Vladimir’s struggle with the defenders of the old faith - the pagan priests Zherivol, Kuroyad and Piyar. Thus, the basis of the play is not a biblical one, as was previously accepted, but a historical event, although also related to religion. The historical plot of the play “Vladimir” does not prevent it from remaining an acutely topical work. This happens because Prokopovich associates the spread of enlightenment with Christianity, and with paganism the triumph of ignorance and conservatism. Vladimir's struggle with the priests clearly hinted at the conflict between Peter I and the reactionary clergy. The superiority of Christianity over paganism is especially clearly shown in the third act, where a dispute takes place between the Greek philosopher defending Christianity and the priest Zherivol. Zherivol responds to all his opponent’s arguments with rude abuse. After this dispute, Vladimir becomes even more convinced of the correctness of his decision. The play ends with the complete disgrace of the priests and the overthrow of the pagan idols.

Prokopovich defined the genre of his play with the term “tragedy-comedy.” In the treatise “On Poetic Art” he wrote about it: “From these two genera (tragedy and comedy. - P.O.) a third, mixed genus is formed, called tragicomedy, or, as Plautus prefers to call it in “Amphitryon”, - tragic-comedy, since it was in it that the witty and funny were mixed with the serious and sad, and insignificant faces with the outstanding ones” (p. 432). The “serious” theme is represented in Feofan’s play by the image of Vladimir, in whose soul there is a painful struggle between old habits and the decision made. The temptations tempting Vladimir are personified in the images of three demons - the demon of the flesh, the demon of blasphemy and the demon of the world. The carriers of the comedic principle are the priests, whose names emphasize their base, carnal passions - gluttony and drunkenness. They are greedy, selfish and cling to the pagan faith only because it allows them to eat the sacrifices made to the gods. Zherivol's gluttony is depicted in the play in hyperbolic proportions. He is capable of eating an entire bull in one day. Even in his sleep, Zherivol continues to move his jaws, continuing his favorite activity. Prokopovich addressed exactly the same reproaches of greed, drunkenness and debauchery to the clergy of his day in his sermons. Prokopovich's play is largely connected with the Baroque traditions. It presents two principles - tragic and comic, which the poetics of classicism categorically forbade to combine in one work. In addition to “high” and “low”, Feofan’s work also combines real and fantastic images. Thus, next to the priests and Prince Vladimir, the ghost of Yaropolk, demons, as well as “charm” appear, that is, temptation “with many other girls.” IN dramatic action a musical beginning is introduced, in which the same contrasts are present: the songs of Zherivol and Kuroyad are contrasted with a choir of angels, in which the Apostle Andrew participates.

The third section of Prokopovich’s artistic creativity is represented by lyrical poetic works. They are written in syllabic verse and are distinguished by a variety of themes. Serious heroic genres include “Epinikion”, or, as Theophanes himself explains this word, “victory song”. This panegyric genre preceded the classicist ode in Russia. Feofan's "Epinikion" is dedicated to the victory of the Russian army in the Battle of Poltava. Adjacent to the “Epinikion” in its military theme is the poem “Beyond the Pockmarked Grave,” which describes one of the episodes of the Prut campaign of Peter I, in which the author himself participated. It is distinguished by light and rather rhythmic verses for that time, and was even later included in the songbooks of the 18th century: “Behind the Ryabaya grave/ /Above the Prutovaya river/ /There was an army in a terrible battle” (p. 214). In the poem “The Shepherd Boy Cries in Long Bad Weather,” the author speaks in allegorical form about the difficult time that he had to endure after the death of Peter I. He likens himself to a shepherd caught in bad weather, whose flock has thinned out, and there is still no hope for “red” days. . At the end of this five-year period, Theophanes read Antiochus Cantemir's handwritten satire “To His Mind.” In its author, he immediately felt like a like-minded person. He writes a message in syllabic octaves entitled “Theophan, Archbishop of Novgorod to the author of the satire.” Prokopovich hastens to congratulate the unknown poet in this poem and advises him not to be afraid of the enemies he ridiculed: “Spit on their thunderstorms! You are threefold blessed” (p. 217).

The transitional nature of Feofan’s activity was also evident in his theoretical works. This primarily refers to the course of lectures in Latin, which he read in 1705 for students of the Kyiv Academy and called “De arte poetica” (“On the Poetic Art”). In his views, Feofan relies on ancient writers revered by classicists - on Horace, Aristotle, as well as the French theorist of the 16th century, predecessor of the classicists - Yu. Ts. Scaliger. He quotes Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Pindar, Catullus and other ancient writers. In creativity itself, an important place is given to the rules derived from “model essays.” Along with the rules, “imitation of models” is strongly recommended. It is impossible to become a good poet, asserts Feofan, “if we do not have leaders, that is, excellent and famous authors in the poetic art, following in whose footsteps we will achieve the same goal as them.” (p. 381). Feofan considered epic and tragedy to be the most serious and authoritative works. In dramatic works, according to him, there must necessarily be five acts. This number would later be legitimized by classicists. There is already a clear tendency towards establishing the unity of action and time. “In a tragedy,” writes Prokopovich, “one should not represent a whole life in action... but only one action that occurred or could have occurred within two or at least three days” (p. 435). Thus, the artistic and theoretical activity of Feofan Prokopovich paved the way for Russian classicism.

Questions and tasks

1. Get acquainted with the book “The Honest Mirror of Youth” (1717) and compare it with “Domostroy”, a monument of the 16th century. What are the similarities and differences between these works?

2. Compare the fate of Vasily Koriotsky from “The History of the Russian sailor Vasily Koriotsky” with the fate of the main characters from “The Tale of Misfortune” and “The Tale of Savva Gruddyn”. Motivate the life paths of the heroes with historical conditions.

3. Write out words of foreign origin from the stories about Vasily Koriotsky and the nobleman Alexander. What caused their appearance?

4. Demonstrate the genre specificity of “The History of the Russian sailor Vasily Koriotsky” by identifying the functions of historical realities, traditions of adventure fairy tales and novels.

5. Identify the main historical sources of the tragic comedy “Vladimir” and determine the features of their use in its plot and system of images.

6. What rhetorical devices did Feofan Prokopovich use in “The Tale of the Burial of Peter the Great”?

7. Show with several examples the transitional nature from ancient literature to new literature in the work of Feofan Prokopovich.

8. How do everyday and literary etiquette compare in ancient Russian literature and in the Petrine era?

9. What is common and what distinguishes the aesthetic ideas of Avvakum Petrov and Feofan Prokopovich (compare “On Icon Writing” and “Poetic Art”)?

10. Determine the possibilities of the aesthetic impact of theater, poetry, masquerades, assemblies and triumphal processions on the consciousness of the public of the Peter the Great era.

11. Show with specific examples the principle of unmotivated mixing of styles in dramatic texts of Peter the Great’s time.

12. Under the influence of what factors were the artistic canons of the Middle Ages transformed during the period of Peter the Great’s reforms?

13. What are the main controversial problems of Russian literary baroque? Can Baroque be considered a pan-European style, devoid of national differences? What position do you take in modern debates about the place of the Baroque within the styles of Russian literature of the transition period from ancient to modern literature?

14. Highlight the stylistic features of the Baroque in the process of analyzing the texts of Avvakum Petrov, Simeon of Polotsk, Feofan Prokopovich.

16. What are the forms and methods of poetic approval of Peter’s transformations in the stories of the early 18th century?

17. What do you see as the main features of the use of folklore traditions in handwritten stories of the Peter the Great era?

18. Identify the relationship between Western European and ancient Russian traditions in the development of the motives “man and fate”, “fathers and sons”, “love and marriage” in “Peter’s” stories.

FORMATION OF RUSSIAN CLASSICISM

In the 30-50s, the struggle between supporters and opponents of Peter's reforms did not stop. However, Peter's successors on the throne turned out to be extremely mediocre people. The stamp of increasing self-interest in this era marked the behavior of the nobility, which, while retaining their privileges, sought to throw off all responsibilities.

During the reign of Peter III, on February 18, 1762, a Decree on the Liberty of the Nobility was issued, freeing nobles from compulsory service.

And yet, neither the inertia of the rulers, nor the predation of the favorites, nor the greed of the nobles could stop the progressive development of Russian society. “After the death of Peter I,” Pushkin wrote, “the movement, transmitted by a strong man, still continued in the huge composition of the transformed state.” But the bearers of progress were now not representatives of the authorities, but the advanced noble and common intelligentsia. The Academy of Sciences begins its activities. The first Russian professors appeared in it - V.K. Trediakovsky and M.V. Lomonosov. The Academy of Sciences publishes the journal “Monthly Works for Use and Entertainment.” The future writers A.P. Sumarokov and M.M. Kheraskov studied in the Land Noble Corps, created in 1732. In 1756, the first state theater was opened in St. Petersburg. Its core was an amateur troupe of Yaroslavl artists led by the merchant's son F. G. Volkov. The first director of the theater was playwright A.P. Sumarokov. In 1755, thanks to the persistent efforts of Lomonosov and with the assistance of the prominent nobleman I. I. Shuvalov, Moscow University was opened and two gymnasiums were opened with it - for nobles and for commoners. Serious changes are also taking place in the field of literature. It formed the first literary movement in Russia - classicism.

The name of this direction comes from the Latin word classicus, i.e. exemplary. This was the name of ancient literature, which was widely used by classicists. Classicism received its most vivid embodiment in the 17th century. in France in the works of Corneille, Racine, Moliere, Boileau. The ideological basis of literary movements is always a broad social movement. Russian classicism was created by a generation of European-educated young writers who were born in the era of Peter's reforms and sympathized with them. “The basis of this artistic system,” G. N. Pospelov writes about Russian classicism, “was an ideological worldview that developed as a result of awareness of the strengths of the civil transformations of Peter I.”

The main thing in the ideology of classicism is state pathos. The state, created in the first decades of the 18th century, was declared the highest value. The classicists, inspired by Peter's reforms, believed in the possibility of its further improvement. It seemed to them to be a reasonably structured social organism, where each class fulfills the duties assigned to it. “Peasants plow, merchants trade, warriors defend the fatherland, judges judge, scientists cultivate science,” wrote A.P. Sumarokov. The state pathos of Russian classicists is a deeply contradictory phenomenon. It reflected progressive trends associated with the final centralization of Russia, and at the same time - utopian ideas coming from a clear overestimation of the social possibilities of enlightened absolutism.

The attitude of the classicists to the “nature” of man is equally contradictory. Its basis, in their opinion, is selfish, but at the same time amenable to education and the influence of civilization. The key to this is reason, which the classicists contrasted with emotions and “passions.” Reason helps to realize “duty” to the state, while “passions” distract from socially useful activities. “Virtue,” wrote Sumarokov, “we do not owe to our nature. Morals and politics make us, by the measure of enlightenment, reason and purification of hearts, useful to the common good. Without this, people would have destroyed each other long ago without a trace.”

The uniqueness of Russian classicism lies in the fact that in its formation era it combined the pathos of serving the absolutist state with the ideas of the early European Enlightenment. In France in the 18th century. absolutism had already exhausted its progressive possibilities, and society faced bourgeois revolution, which was ideologically prepared by French enlighteners. In Russia in the first decades of the 18th century. absolutism was still at the head of progressive transformations for the country. Therefore, at the first stage of its development, Russian classicism adopted some of its social doctrines from the Enlightenment. These include, first of all, the idea of ​​enlightened absolutism. According to this theory, the state should be headed by a wise, “enlightened” monarch, who in his ideas stands above the selfish interests of individual classes and demands from each of them honest service for the benefit of the whole society. An example of such a ruler for Russian classicists was Peter I, a unique personality in intelligence, energy and broad political outlook.

Unlike French classicism of the 17th century. and in direct accordance with the Age of Enlightenment in Russian classicism of the 30s -50s, a huge place was given to sciences, knowledge, and enlightenment. The country has made a transition from church ideology to secular one. Russia needed accurate knowledge useful to society. Lomonosov spoke about the benefits of science in almost all his odes. Cantemir’s first satire, “To Your Mind. On those who blaspheme the teaching." The word “enlightened” itself did not simply mean educated person, but a human citizen, to whom knowledge helped to realize his responsibility to society. “Ignorance” implied not only a lack of knowledge, but at the same time a lack of understanding of one’s duty to the state. In Western European educational literature of the 18th century, especially at the later stage of its development, “enlightenment” was determined by the degree of opposition to the existing order. In Russian classicism of the 30s and 50s, “enlightenment” was measured by the measure of civil service to the absolutist state. Russian classicists - Kantemir, Lomonosov, Sumarokov - were close to the struggle of enlighteners against the church and church ideology. But if in the West it was about defending the principle of religious tolerance, and in some cases atheism, then Russian enlighteners in the first half of the 18th century. denounced the ignorance and rude morals of the clergy, defended science and its adherents from persecution by church authorities. The first Russian classicists were already aware of the educational idea about the natural equality of people. “The flesh in your servant is one-person,” Cantemir pointed out to the nobleman beating the valet. Sumarokov reminded the “noble” class that “born from women and from ladies // Without exception, Adam is the forefather of all.” But this thesis at that time had not yet been embodied in the demand for the equality of all classes before the law. Cantemir, based on the principles of “natural law,” called on the nobles to treat the peasants humanely. Sumarokov, pointing to the natural equality of nobles and peasants, demanded that the “first” members of the fatherland through education and service confirm their “nobility” and commanding position in the country.

In the purely artistic field, Russian classicists faced such complex tasks that their European brothers did not know. French literature of the mid-17th century. already had a well-developed literary language and secular genres that had developed over a long time. Russian literature at the beginning of the 18th century. had neither one nor the other. Therefore, it was the share of Russian writers of the second third of the 18th century. The task fell not only of creating a new literary movement. They had to reform the literary language, master genres unknown until that time in Russia. Each of them was a pioneer. Kantemir laid the foundation for Russian satire, Lomonosov legitimized the ode genre, Sumarokov acted as the author of tragedies and comedies. In the field of literary language reform the main role belonged to Lomonosov. The Russian classicists also faced such a serious task as the reform of Russian versification, the replacement of the syllabic system with a syllabic-tonic one.

The creative activity of Russian classicists was accompanied and supported by numerous theoretical works in the field of genres, literary language and versification. Trediakovsky wrote a treatise entitled “A New and Brief Method for Composing Russian Poems,” in which he substantiated the basic principles of the new, syllabic-tonic system. Lomonosov, in his discussion “On the Use of Church Books in the Russian Language,” carried out a reform of the literary language and proposed the doctrine of “three calms.” Sumarokov in his treatise “Instructions for those who want to be writers” gave a description of the content and style of classicist genres.

As a result of persistent work, a literary movement was created that had its own program, creative method and harmonious system of genres. Artistic creativity was thought of by the classicists as strict adherence to “reasonable” rules, eternal laws, created on the basis of studying the best examples of ancient authors and French literature of the 17th century. A distinction was made between “correct” and “incorrect” works, that is, those that corresponded or did not comply with the classicist “rules.” Even Shakespeare's best tragedies were classified as "wrong". Rules existed for each genre and required strict implementation. Creative method classicists is formed on the basis of rationalistic thinking. Like the founder of rationalism, Descartes, they strive to decompose human psychology into its simplest component forms. Are not typed social characters, A human passions and virtue. This is how the images of a miser, a prude, a dandy, a braggart, a hypocrite, etc. are born. It was strictly forbidden to combine different “passions” and especially “vice” and “virtue” in one character. Genres were distinguished by exactly the same “purity” and unambiguity. A comedy was not supposed to include “touching” episodes. The tragedy excluded the showing of comic characters. As Sumarokov said, one should not irritate the muses “with your bad success: Thalia with tears, // and Melpomene with laughter” (p. 136).

The works of classicists were represented by high and low genres clearly opposed to each other. There was a rationalistic, well-thought-out hierarchy here. High genres included the ode, the epic poem, and the eulogy. Low - comedy, fable, epigram. True, Lomonosov also proposed “middle” genres - tragedy and satire, but tragedy was more inclined towards high genres, and satire - towards low genres. Each of the groups assumed its own moral and social significance. In high genres, “exemplary” heroes were depicted - monarchs, generals who could serve as role models. Among them, the most popular was Peter I. In low genres, characters were depicted who were overwhelmed by one or another “passion.”

Special rules existed in the classicist “code” for dramatic works. They had to observe three “unities” - place, time and action. These unities subsequently caused many criticisms. But, oddly enough, the demand for “unities” was dictated in the poetics of the classicists by the desire for verisimilitude. The classicists wanted to create a unique illusion of life on stage. In this regard, they sought to bring the stage time closer to the time that the audience spends in the theater. “Try to measure the clock for me in the game by the hour, / So that, having forgotten myself, I can believe you” (p. 137), Sumarokov instructed novice playwrights. The maximum time allowed in classic plays was not to exceed twenty-four hours. The unity of the place was due to another rule. The theater, divided into an auditorium and a stage, gave the audience the opportunity to see someone else's life. Transferring the action to another place, the classicists believed, would break this illusion. Therefore, the best option was considered to be a performance with permanent scenery, much worse, but acceptable, was the development of events within the confines of one house, castle, palace. And finally, the unity of action implied in the play the presence of only one storyline and a minimum number of characters participating in the events depicted.

Of course, such plausibility was too superficial. At this time, playwrights could not yet fully understand the fact that convention is one of the attributes of each type of creativity, without which it is impossible to create genuine works of art. “Plausibility,” wrote Pushkin, “is still considered the main condition and foundation of dramatic art... What if they prove to us that the very essence of dramatic art excludes verisimilitude?.. Where is verisimilitude in a building divided into two parts, one of which is filled spectators who agreed etc.” .

And yet, in the stage laws proposed by the classicists, in the notorious “unities” there was also a rational grain. It consisted in the desire for a clear organization of a dramatic work, in concentrating the viewer’s attention not on the external, entertainment side, but on the characters themselves, on their dramatic relationships. However, these demands were expressed in too harsh and categorical form.

Subsequently, in the era of romanticism, the indisputable rules of classicist poetics caused ridicule. They seemed to be constraining bonds that fettered poetic inspiration. This reaction was absolutely correct for that time, since outdated norms interfered with the forward movement of Russian literature. But in the era of classicism they were perceived as a saving principle created by enlightenment and the principles of public order.

It should be noted that, despite such regulation of creativity, the works of each of the classic writers had their own individual characteristics. Thus, Kantemir and Sumarokov attached great importance to civic education. Both writers were painfully aware of the self-interest and ignorance of the nobility, their oblivion of their social duty. Satire was used as one of the means to achieve this goal. In his tragedies, Sumarokov subjected the monarchs themselves to harsh judgment, appealing to their civic conscience.

Lomonosov and Trediakovsky are absolutely not concerned about the problem of educating nobles. They are closer not to class, but to the national pathos of Peter’s reforms: the spread of science, military successes, and the economic development of Russia. Lomonosov in his laudatory odes does not judge the monarchs, the heirs of Peter I, but strives to captivate them with the tasks of further improving the Russian state. This determines the style of each writer. So, artistic media Sumarokov are subordinated to didactic techniques. Hence the desire for clarity, preciseness, unambiguousness of the word, for the logical thoughtfulness of the composition of works. Lomonosov's style is distinguished by pomp, an abundance of bold metaphors and personifications corresponding to the grandeur of state reforms.

Russian classicism of the 18th century. went through two stages in its development. The first of them dates back to the 30-50s. This is the formation of a new direction, when one after another genres unknown to that time in Russia are born, the literary language and versification are reformed. The second stage falls on the last four decades of the 18th century. and is associated with the names of such writers as Fonvizin, Kheraskov, Derzhavin, Knyazhnin, Kapnist. In their work, Russian classicism most fully and widely revealed its ideological and artistic possibilities.

Every major literary movement, leaving the stage, continues to live in later literature. Classicism bequeathed to her high civic pathos, the principle of human responsibility to society, the idea of ​​duty based on the suppression of personal, egoistic principles in the name of general state interests.

A. D. Cantemir (1709-1744)

Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir is the first Russian classicist writer, author of poetic satires. The son of a Moldavian ruler who accepted Russian citizenship in 1711, Cantemir was raised in the spirit of sympathy for Peter's reforms. During the years of reaction that followed the death of Peter, he boldly denounced the militant ignorance of high-born nobles and clergy. Kantemir owns nine satires: five written in Russia and four abroad, where he was sent as an ambassador in 1732. The satirical activity of the writer clearly confirms the organic connection of Russian classicism with the needs of Russian society. Unlike previous literature, all of Cantemir’s works are distinguished by a purely secular character.

Satires

The young writer’s early literary experience was the “Symphony on the Psalter,” i.e., an alphabetical-thematic index to one of the books of the Bible. His songs on love themes that have not reached us date back to the same time, which were very popular among his contemporaries, but the poet himself did not value them highly. Cantemir’s best works were satires, the first of which “On those who blaspheme the teaching. To Your Mind" was written in 1729.

Cantemir's early satires were created in the era following the death of Peter I, in an atmosphere of struggle between defenders and opponents of his reforms. One of the points of disagreement was the attitude towards science and secular education. In this situation, according to one of the researchers, Cantemir, the first satire “was a work of enormous political resonance, since it was directed against ignorance as a specific social and political force, and not an abstract vice... militant and triumphant ignorance, invested with the authority of the state and church authority."

Object

Related information.

In medieval art there were no rules. They were replaced etiquette(unwritten rules enshrined in the authority of tradition). In the 18th century, literary theory was imported into Russia. But the paradox was that the rules were not used to create texts. Real texts were constructed by analogy with other texts.

A theory is or a system of structures inherent in a group of texts and identified by the researcher, and a concept created in the same era as the texts being studied, known to the writers of the era and influencing their work.

As mentioned above, the 18th century was a century of theories, and theory gravitated towards utopia. In literary practice, as in the practice of public life, ideals and reality often did not coincide. Just as life related to a literary work, so literary texts related to literary theory (as a norm). In theory, correctness was valued. The discrepancy with practice did not discredit her. Theory does not cognize, but prescribes. She is active and normative. In Russian literature of the 18th century, many artistic and aesthetic worlds coexist, and, from the point of view of each of them, literature itself, its boundaries, tasks and achievements look different. This whole motley artistic world does not stand still: over the course of one generation, the artistic map of literature changes radically.

There are three types of theoretical ideas (1730-1770):

· theories that strive to accommodate the maximum range of concepts and justify the assimilation of a wide range of texts;

· theories that highlight one direction and reject all others as incorrect;

· the desire for a zero theory.

Baroque reinforces the first type of artistic thinking. For baroque, it is necessary to have a cultural context opposite to it - previous and subsequent links that would constitute themselves as normal and against the background of which the world of baroque would be perceived as an inverted or perverse type of culture. The feeling of one's own anomalousness enters into the meta-consciousness of baroque culture, and it must inevitably be nourished by memory and ideal normal text, normal culture, normal world. Connected with this is the masquerade, inversion and parody of Baroque culture and its attention to the problems of lies, the relative nature of truth and the diverse aspects of the theme of “perverted light”.

In the theoretical periodization of culture, Baroque occupies a place between the Renaissance and classicism. Like any literary movement, Baroque has its own artistic system and implements its inherent poetic means. But as an ideal type, baroque exists only in poetic abstraction. Baroque originated in the depths of the Counter-Reformation, but went beyond its boundaries. Baroque came into East Slavic literature from Polish literature. School theory and practice contributed to its assimilation.

Baroque aesthetics synthesized the traditions of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Russia passed the Renaissance stage and continued to maintain its medieval appearance until the 17th century. The medieval beginning in the Baroque ensured its perception on Russian soil, and also enriched the domestic heritage, based on Greek-Slavic Orthodox traditions, with knowledge of the Latin Catholic Middle Ages. Baroque entered Russia with the work of Simeon of Polotsk and his students.

Baroque is related to the Middle Ages in its symbolic and allegorical vision of the world. The enduring symbol of Baroque poetry is the wheel of Fortune, which is the wheel of time. Baroque fine art is characterized by the “clock” symbol. Related to the theme of the transience of life is the theme of imminent death (thanatos). Among Russian baroque authors, reflections on fast-moving life coexist with the preaching of piety.

Baroque poets were guided by a certain ideal text, seeing their task as creating an invariant of this text. The Baroque worldview is based on the idea of ​​God as the greatest and all-good creative force that created the world. Hence the numerous translations of the Psalter (see the creation of the “Rhyming Psalter” by S. Polotsky). Baroque principles of understanding the world - rhetorical rationalism, a combination of pagan and Christian motifs, “pathetic speech”, the ability to wit (acumen), emblematic thinking (the Baroque revived the fashion for hieroglyphs and emblems), the tendency to synthesize different types of creativity within one work. The theory of wit provided for the pairing of incommensurable and far apart things and concepts. This theory became the leading literary doctrine of the Baroque era. A significant role in Baroque poetry is played by text graphics, the use of colored writing and font varieties. The poet turns the reader into a spectator and cultivates the image of the word as a graphic sign. Heraldic poetry flourishes.

Baroque texts contain elements of play and ingenuity; they are dominated by the principle of parabola and paraphrase, paradox as the ability to combine heterogeneous things. Baroque authors assert the meaning of the word and the ambiguity of the text.

A favorite theme of Baroque literature is the theme of the martyrdom of Christ.

A favorite symbolic metaphor, along with pipes, a sword, dinner, a key, a mirror, an alphabet, and a theater, is the garden. This is the garden of love (antiquity), and the garden of pleasures (Renaissance), and the “garden of the prisoner” (the focus of the spiritual and moral values ​​of Christianity). The garden is a church, scripture, paradise, the Mother of God, the place of the Easter mystery, the soul of the righteous. Garden – arts and sciences (secular meanings). Various plant metaphors (tree, flower, fruit) are associated with the image of the garden.

Baroque man is a microcosm, repeating in its structure the macrocosm of the Universe.

Baroque work is oriented towards the point of view of the perceiver.

The Baroque contributed to the flourishing of panegyric (servile) poetry. Such poetry is characterized by the removal of boundaries between art and reality, the violation of artistic conventions.

The opposite type of aesthetic consciousness to baroque is built on the desire to present the entire sphere of poetry as a single state governed by the same laws. This aesthetic absolutism viewed each text and the entire empire of poetry as a whole in the light of the unity of artistic norms. This did not exclude a variety of forms and genres, but implied the presence of a general hierarchy. This type of aesthetic consciousness is usually defined as classicism.

What is the theory of classicism? It is based on the idea of ​​normality, “purity” and “correctness” (“regularity”). A norm is a certain ideal, order, a reasonable plan that exists only in a speculative perspective. Connected with this contradiction between the speculative and the real is the confrontation between critical and practical attitudes in the literary process of this period. In the concept of the era of classicism, man is bifurcated into an ethical and historical man. An ethical person is something abstract, non-existent in reality. An ethical person cannot be shown, he can only be formulated. Therefore, the main contradiction of the new literature was the contradiction between moral teaching, a direct presentation of a certain system of ideas and their artistic and figurative expression.

One of the problems of classic literature is the problem of the positive hero: it makes sense to consider it in the context of the broader problem of the relationship between norm and reality, literature and life, theory and practice. The literature of Russian classicism emerges as a literature of direct influence on society and authorities. This impact is the introduction into the public consciousness of a certain system of ethical and political ideas, the formation of the nation’s self-awareness. The actual literary expression of this self-awareness is the constant, emphasized presence of the author and the author’s attitude to what is happening. The personal principle was designated precisely as the author’s stated attitude towards the depicted. The author openly stated his position behind the text (in the prefaces to the plays) and in the texts themselves (monologues of characters, fable summaries, titles of Cantemir’s satires and plays of the “prepositional direction”). If the negative characters were taken from real life and were recognizable to everyone (often these were not just collective vices, but specific people, as, for example, in the lampoon comedies of Sumarokov, in the satires of Kantemir or in Lomonosov’s “Hymn to the Beard”), then the positive characters were distinguished by their abstractness and speculative appearance and were only “spirits” who were yet to be embodied in reality.

Classicism is an example of a rule-oriented system: theoretical models were thought of as eternal and prior to real creativity. Only “correct” texts (corresponding to the rules) were considered significant. The creator of rules occupies a hierarchically higher place in the system of classicism than the creator of texts (a critic is more honorable than a writer).

In France, classicism acts as a transformation of an already existing literary and linguistic tradition, which is critically viewed, but not denied. Classicist theories in France are one way or another focused on the “defects” of previous literature; the prescriptions of classicism are corrections of previous shortcomings. But correcting shortcomings is always a continuation of the literary process, implying continuity. The literary past exists for the French in full; it serves as the material from which Boileau and Vogela develop a new literature and a new literary language.

In Russia the situation is fundamentally different. Classicism is formed as part new culture, which denies the old culture, the literary past practically does not exist for him. The efforts of Russian authors are directed not at criticizing their predecessors, but at creating new literature (a new literary language and new literary genres). Programmatic works of Russian classicists - “Epistole from Russian Poetry to Apolline” by Trediakovsky, epistole “On Poetry” by Sumarokov. It is characteristic that Russian authors are practically not mentioned in these works, but ancient and Western European writers are mentioned, who embody the literary past. New Russian literature is perceived not as a continuation of old Russian literature, but as a continuation of European literature.

The first Russian classicists declared a rejection of the past, but in practice this rejection could not be complete and consistent.

Theoretical postulates are implemented primarily in the criticism of other people's texts and do not extend to their own literary production, which freely deviates from the rigoristic European model. This leads to the fact that authors constantly accuse each other of the same errors. Sumarokov accuses Trediakovsky of being partial to tautologies (“pleasant pleasure,” “decent disorder”), but he himself is guilty of such phrases. Sumarokov reproaches Lomonosov for “meaningless” metaphors that contradict the norms of classicist poetics, but baroque elements are also found in Sumarokov’s odes: in solemn odes he repeatedly uses the very expressions with which he parodies Lomonosov.

Critical and practical attitudes cannot be identified. In developing literary theory, it was impossible to get by only with criticism of rivals. It was necessary, as positive aspects, to introduce into the literary and linguistic doctrine such provisions that would at least partially legalize the peculiarities of Russian literary practice and, above all, the hidden continuity in relation to the Church Slavonic literary tradition. This task determines the search in European theories for postulates that would make such legitimation possible. An example is Trediakovsky’s “Discourse on the Ode in General”: as a model for the first Russian ode, Trediakovsky chooses the ode to the capture of Namur Boileau, where the author, in turn, defends the value literary heritage ancient authors (in particular Pindar and the Psalter). As if developing the views of Boileau, Trediakovsky legitimizes the connection of the Russian ode with the Slavic Psalter, and, consequently, with the traditions of syllabic panegyric. At the beginning of his ode, Trediakovsky, translating Boileau, uses the oxymoronic expression “sober pianism,” taken from the dictionary of spiritual literature and unacceptable from the point of view of classicist purism. The same Trediakovsky insists on naturalness and simplicity as necessary qualities of the odic language, scolds Sumarokov for “poetic highs,” calling this manner of “blowing inflated bubbles” or “grabbing clouds with the mouth.”

The pressure of literary tradition encouraged Russian classicists to deviate from the system of rules that they learned from their French teachers. The justification for these deviations was the doctrine of poetic delight, which allows the poet to violate laws at will. Pindarization (delight) becomes a complete destruction of the norms of classicist poetics, legitimizing the baroque poetics of the Russian ode. It is poetic delight (“sober pianism”) that determines the very language of God, in which the violation of logical connections reveals a truth that lies beyond simple understanding. Thus, the poetic gift is something irrational, which clearly contradicts the aesthetics of classicism. In “A Brief Guide to Eloquence,” Lomonosov also touches on the figure of delight, again referring to Boileau. In Lomonosov's ode there is an oxymoronic combination of “vigorous doze” and “manifest dream”.

Trediakovsky’s “sober pianism” was parodied by Sumarokov as “drunken enthusiasm” and “a chaotic confusion, where the round and the quadrangular are mixed.” He parodied Lomonosov’s oxymorons in the First Nonsense Ode. But Sumarokov himself from time to time refers to Pindar as an example of inspired poetics. No matter how incongruous the features of high poetics and stylistics may seem, delight becomes a constant feature of the odic genre and the “trademark” of high style. “Pindarization” is a deviation from the linguistic-stylistic norms of classicist purism, elevated into a system, in which the genre model is the Psalter (in France, the Psalter remained Latin, while the ode was written in French; in Russia, the language of the ode and the Psalter was common). Thus, the criteria for evaluating a poetic work are no longer derived from the rational principles put forward by classicism, and turn out to be completely dependent on the recognition or non-recognition of the poet’s prophetic gift. In clear contradiction with the aesthetics of classicism, the same formal characteristics can accompany both true and false poetry. The providence of a true poet is opposed by the blindness of a false one, in whom the lack of logical connections turns into “confusion”, and in the place of “sober drunkenness” there appears “drunken enthusiasm”.

“Subsequent literary development pushed panegyric genres to the periphery of the literary process, and this new perspective led to the reader’s insensitivity to the “odic theme of the inseparability of poetry and the state,” to the poetry of time days that inspired European classicism from Malherbe to Kheraskov. Classicism and enlightened absolutism proceeded from the general ideas of regulation and progress, which were supposed to transform the world, ridding it of fear, superstition and fratricidal strife. The state was the subject of poetic delight and philosophical meditation precisely because it seemed to act as the manager of cosmic harmony on earth. Therefore, the victories of the monarch, his prosperity, the conclusion of alliances and peace treaties were not only the material of the image, but also the topic of philosophical and artistic reflection. The progress of the state was perceived as the progress of reason and the progress of enlightenment, and not as the private progress of a given society, but as the universal development of a principle that constitutes the common property. Such was the literature of the times of Louis 14th in France, German literature of the first half of the 18th century and Russian literature - from Feofan Prokopovich to Derzhavin. That is why “state” poetry - so tiresome for the later reader of the Henriad and Petrida, as well as countless odes to the coronation, namesake or capture of another fortress - being identified with philosophical poetry, turned out to be the only worthy field of a thinking poet, or in any case the pinnacle of his creativity."