Horace – Derzhavin – Pushkin. Literary traditions or innovation?

A man who devoted himself entirely to art, who gave up a lot for the right to be a poet, is a true servant of the Muse. Such poets include Horace and G.R. Derzhavin, and, first of all, A.S. Pushkin. Their poetry is original, but there is something that connects Poets who are so different in their work.

Everyone knows Pushkin’s “Monument”; we often repeat: “I erected a monument to myself, not made by hands...”. But the tradition of such poems came from Horace, from his ode “To Melpomene”. Both Derzhavin and Pushkin wrote poems based on the model of this ode, observing literary traditions.

Looking at the dictionary, we learn that the word “tradition” came to us from the Latin language and is translated as “transmission”. In the modern Russian language it has two main meanings: firstly, historically established customs, orders, and rules of behavior passed on from generation to generation; secondly, custom, an established order in behavior and everyday life.

Tradition plays a very important role in the life of man and humanity. One of the values ​​that humanity creates in its history is culture. And culture does not exist without tradition. If there were no traditions, then there would be no culture, there would be no art. Tradition is not only passed on from generation to generation, but also develops. This development of tradition in art is called innovation. .

Traditions are links in a great chain that connects people different countries and generations. Without traditions there is no culture, no art, no literature. Studying literature means identifying traditions and identifying innovations contained in works of art.

One of the traditional themes of poetry is the theme of the muse. The name of the muse, the ancient goddess, patroness and inspirer of poets, takes us back to the times of Homer: “Muse, sing to Achilles, son of Peleus.” In modern times (XVI-XIX centuries), the muse becomes a symbol of tradition, the chain that connects living poets with the dead, new works with models. Derzhavin and Pushkin continued ancient tradition appeals to the muse, comprehended it and completed it.

What do we remember about the poetry of Horace, G.R. Derzhavin, A.S. Pushkin? How does the theme of the purpose of the poet and poetry develop in their lyrics? What is traditional and what is innovative can be seen in the “Monument” of Derzhavin and Pushkin? Has Pushkin’s famous creation really been fully studied? I looked for answers to these and other questions while working on the report.

We all know Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin’s poem “I erected a monument to myself not made by hands” from school.

We know it as an expression of Pushkin’s credo about one’s own vocation.

But the results of searching for materials on this topic literally stunned me with new information. V. Bondarev proves that Alexander Sergeevich had no personal desire to build a “Monument” for himself! And this poem is not a poem at all, but... a parody.

He, in turn, relies on the work of the famous literary critic, specialist in literary theory, author of the book “Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”: an alternative reading” Alfred Barkov. Everything that V. Bondarev talks about is based on the work - a study of Barkov “Walks with Evgeniy Onegin”, published in May 1997.

A careful study of the literary environment closest to Pushkin will immediately lead us to the officially recognized classic of his time, Pushkin’s teacher, the poet Gavrila Derzhavin. And in Derzhavin’s work it is simply impossible to ignore the poem he wrote in 1795... “Monument”:

Here is what Pushkinist M. Eremin wrote about this:

“Pushkin, of course, knew this most popular work Derzhavina. And he wanted his “Monument” to remind the reader of Derzhavin’s “Monument”. After all, these coincidences are not accidental: in Derzhavin’s “Monument”: “Having escaped from decay...”; in Pushkin’s “Monument”: “...and decay will flee...”; from Derzhavin: “A rumor will spread about me...”; from Pushkin: “A rumor will spread about me...” (in the draft, this hemistich was written exactly “according to Derzhavin”: “A rumor will spread about me...”); from Derzhavin: “Everyone will remember this among countless nations...”; from Pushkin: “And every language that is in it will call me...” (here the word “language” has a meaning that has been lost in our time - people).

Is it possible to put an end to the investigation? First of all, let's figure out whether Derzhavin himself wrote his “Monument”? No! Derzhavin, in turn, borrowed it from... Horace.

Here is what the same Eremin writes about this: “Derzhavin began his “Monument” (the first seven verses) with a very accurate translation of the corresponding lines of Horace’s “Monument.”

In Pushkin's poem, the Latin epigraph Exegi monumentum is the first line of a similar poem by Horace.

It would seem that everything fell into place: Horace borrowed a poem from his ancestor, from him - Derzhavin (there were others, but they do not apply to this “case”), from Derzhavin, in turn, - Pushkin. Why did Pushkin need this?

It's not his style to steal other people's works. And it’s so clear and revealing. After all, in some places it was copied almost verbatim. Derzhavin is a different matter. Firstly, how many centuries separated him from Horace, and, secondly, there is still much less similarity.

There must be another mystery here!

So, Pushkin’s “Monument” arose as a remake of Derzhavinsky’s “Monument”, which, in turn, reproduced the corresponding poem by Horace.

More precisely, Pushkin was credited with repeating Derzhavin’s poem.

But such an interpretation did not answer the question - why does Pushkin need this?

It should be noted (as Alfred Barkov rightly writes about this) that this work of Alexander Sergeevich drove and still makes Pushkin literary critics blush, because “... he is an enduring headache for all Pushkin studies, since he creates, in general, “uncomfortable” image of an arrogant poet who despises his contemporaries.”

What the poem "Monument" is like independent work not typical for Pushkin’s work and worldview, it was clear to everyone for a long time. But there was no reliable explanation for this phenomenon.

Barkov makes a very important assumption, which will form the basis for unraveling the mystery of the “Monument”: “... Let me remind you that any “inexplicable” internal contradiction in the work of a great artist can only indicate one thing: the presence of a hidden author’s intention, which transforms such a work into satire. And the purpose of structural analysis in in this case should be the identification of this hidden intention, that is, the elements that form the structure of the menippea” (A.B.)

So, for the first time the word “satire” was used. Ridicule. But who?

Is it really Derzhavin?! Could Pushkin like this, categorically make fun of his idol, mentor? And if Derzhavin’s cover-up of his poem was still considered possible, then satire in relation to Derzhavin’s “Monument” was never!

This means that there is someone third, standing between Pushkin and Derzhavin, not visible for the time being, but who played significant role in the history of literature in general and Pushkin in particular. A sort of dark evil genius that prompted the Poet to respond to the injection with an injection, visibly lunging in the direction of Derzhavin.

And the name of this man is Pavel Aleksandrovich Katenin, who was the reason the great poet wrote this, to put it mildly, atypical work for him.

It must be said that P.A. Katenin is a very extraordinary person.

Almost unknown today (at least not widely known), he was nevertheless a very famous and popular poet in the mid-18th century. And not only a poet. Here is some information about him that you can read in the Brief Biographical Dictionary “Russian Writers and Poets”: Pavel Aleksandrovich Katenin (1792 - 1853), poet, critic.

The study of materials clearly proves that Katenin and Pushkin were not only fellow writers, but also long-time and irreconcilable rivals. In a number of literary and life positions they differed quite sharply. We can say that throughout almost their entire lives there was a protracted literary duel between these individuals.

Here is what A. Barkov writes about this: “Pushkin created the first parody of the work of P.A. Katenin back in the Lyceum, in 1815. Having recognized himself in “Ruslan and Lyudmila” in the image of Chernomor, Katenin then, in 1820, responded with the play “Gossip”, in which he depicted the offender in the image of an unscrupulous intriguer. Pushkin’s answer was an extended epigram - “Eugene Onegin.” Later, Katenin not only portrayed Pushkin as a foreigner flattering the kings, but also turned to him with a mocking request to publish the poem. Pushkin published, but it cost Katenin dearly: “House in Kolomna”, “ Bronze Horseman”, “Yezersky”, many other satirical works, including even “Monument”, canonized as a “civil credo of a national shrine” - this was Pushkin’s response to the attacks of his “friend”.

Experts in Katenin’s creativity note that the central lyrical theme mature Katenin - the theme of the fate of an outcast poet. It is also evident in his epic works: the poet is rejected, but has not humbled himself in spirit. This is what V.N. wrote about this. Orlov: “In 1834 “Princess Milusha” was published, which Pushkin called (hardly rightly) his best work. The fairy tale has good lyrical digressions. They are connected by a single theme - the same theme of the fate of a poet who has outlived his time, lost his old friends and was not recognized by the new generation. In their sequence, these three large lyrical digressions form, as it were, three parts of a single whole: the first speaks of the magical power of poetry, the second affirms the proud and independent mission of a true poet, the third contains sad reflections on the sad fate of the poet and his few friends:

What to do? Sing while it's still being sung.

Don't stop talking until you're speechless.

Let praise be given to the happiest;

Who sang from the heart, simple and pure,

He was not looking for these popular splashes:

In the few he is similar in spirit,

In himself he will receive his reward,

The power to listen, the power not to listen; I sing.

Katenin had no choice but to take the pose of a poet, proud of his independence and not seeking national recognition. Katenin, forgotten by the world, remained in this position until the end of his days.” This poem was the basis of Pushkin’s parody. It seemed to the poet very close in spirit to Derzhavin’s “Monument”. And the shape is almost the same.

But perhaps we would never have known Pushkin’s “Monument” if not for one more important circumstance. In 1830, Katenin sent his poem “Genius and Poet” to “Northern Flowers”; in it he conducts a dialogue with his own genius, separated from himself. The poem was not passed for censorship reasons, but it came very well in time for the eighth chapter of the novel “Eugene Onegin”, where, as we remember, Onegin conducts a similar dialogue with his Muse. Although “Genius” was not published, Pushkin could become familiar with its contents through “Northern Flowers,” to which he was close. In any case, the dialogue with the Muse in the eighth chapter can also be considered as Pushkin’s reaction to this work

It was the combination of all these circumstances that ultimately prompted Alexander Sergeevich to write a parody of P.A. Katenin in the form of a parody of Derzhavin’s “Monument”, for the spirit of the late Katenin’s poems, his reflections on his own place in poetry, the desire to declare his mark in literature was quite close to this particular work of G. Derzhavin.

Now it becomes completely clear why the brilliant poet Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin wrote this pretentious work, which is completely contrary to his own literary credo and the civic modesty given to him by Nature, and is like two peas in a pod like someone else’s poem. And even with an epigraph from Horace. In this way, the poet ridiculed his long-time opponent Katenin in his desire to become like the Great Ones and immortalize himself in a poetic monument. Already the formation of the chain Horace - Derzhavin - Katenin was a sharp expression of Pushkin’s non-acceptance of Katenin’s view of his literary “I”.

This is the point of view of V. Bondarev. I completely disagree with her, because... I believe that the poem “Monument” is the result of the development of traditions and innovation in poetry.

Quintus Horace Flaccus (Appendix 1.2.) (65-8 BC) - one of the famous Roman poets of the Augustan era - was born in the Apulian city of Venusia, on the border of Lucania, and was the son of a freedman. Despite his meager income, the father gave his son a decent education, first in Venusia, then in Rome, where Horace attended the Orbilius school. Upon completion, he went to Athens for further education, where he studied philosophy especially diligently. When Brutus arrived in Athens, Horace joined his troops, taking the place of military tribune. In 42 BC. e. Horace participated in the Battle of Philippi and, along with others, fled from the battlefield. When, at the end of the war, veterans were awarded land plots, Horace was deprived of his estate, and he, having received, however, an amnesty, returned empty-handed to Rome. Here, in order to find a means of livelihood, he joined the society of quaestor scribes, turning at the same time, not without material considerations, to literature.

The wings are clipped, the spirit is depressed, there is no father's house.
No, no land, - then, prompted by daring poverty,
I started writing poetry.

Soon his muse attracted the interest of literature lovers and court society. In 38 BC. e. Virgil and Varius introduced him to Maecenas, who, having become close to the poet, provided him with material support, and a few years later gave him an estate in the Sabine Mountains. The patron, in turn, introduced Horace to Augustus, but both in real relations and in poetry Horace, sympathizing with the ideas of Augustus and being essentially a court poet, kept a respectful distance from the emperor. Having lived out his life serenely in the lap of nature, far from political passions, Horace died in 8 BC. e. at the age of 57, shortly after the death of Maecenas. The beginning of Horace's poetic activity dates back to 40 BC. e., when he first appeared in the field of satire, which immediately glorified him as a great poet. Horace's teachers were Greek comedians (in content), a Roman satirist of the 2nd century BC. e Lucilius (in content and form) and the Greek cynic Bion (c. 300 BC), from whom Horace borrowed, for example, the form of addressing an imaginary enemy. In satires Horace discovered the rich life experience, knowledge of people, subtle observation, the ability to accurately and truthfully portray characters and, under the guise of a joke, say serious things. In total, Horace wrote 18 satires. They compiled two books, the first of which was published by 35 BC. e., and the second - by 30 BC. e. Simultaneously with the satires, Horace wrote epics or iambs, which formed the collections of 17 plays that have come down to us. These works are called epodes based on the properties of the metrical form, borrowed by Horace from the Greek poet Archilochus. But, in contrast to the passionate, caustic mockery of Archilochus, Horace’s epics reflect a judicious, balanced approach to life, the poet’s quiet mindset. And another category of works called “songs” by Horace - odes - was included in two collections, the first of which was published in 23 BC. e., and the second - in 13 BC. e. “We can no longer perceive Horace the way people of the same language, his contemporaries, his compatriots perceived him,” writes the famous literary critic S.D. Artamonov. - We were separated from the Roman poet by the distance of centuries. We do not catch that subtle aroma of the word that the Romans enjoyed when reading his poems. For us they are aggravated by the names of persons unknown to us, mythical heroes, forgotten geographical names, their form, their rhythmic structure, so valued by the poet’s contemporaries, is alien to us. We can only bow before the authority of his name, which has passed victoriously through twenty centuries.” Of course, it is no longer possible for us to know all the charm of Horace’s poems, but still the Russian poets who translated him - and these are Pushkin, Derzhavin, Zhukovsky, Fet, Blok - managed to convey not only the meaning, but also the very poetry of Horace’s poems.

“Is it possible not to hear the living Horace in them!” - Belinsky responded about these verses. Horace thought a lot about the mystery of creativity, about the laws of art. He outlined his ideas on this matter in his “Epistle to the Piso.” In the 17th-18th centuries, Horace’s ideas found a second life - the “Epistle to the Piso” was the most authoritative manual for the guardians of poetic canons. We all remember Pushkin’s “Monument”, we often repeat “I erected a monument to myself, not made by hands...”. But the tradition of such poems came from Horace, from his ode “To Melpomene,” which began to be translated - “Monument” by Horace. Lomonosov, Derzhavin, and Pushkin wrote poems based on the model of this ode.

Quintus Horace Flaccus (65-8 BC) - poet of the Augustan era, the era of “Golden Latin”. Along with Virgil and Ovid, the most famous Latin poet. Philosophical content and the mastery of poetic form has found and continues to resonate in the literature of different countries and centuries. In Russian poetry greatest number The thirtieth ode of the third book of Horace, known as the “Monument,” caused imitations and translations. A.S. Pushkin took the words “Exegi monumentum” as the epigraph to the poem “I erected a monument to myself not made by hands...” Lomonosov, Derzhavin, Fet, Bryusov and other Russian poets have poems on the theme of Horace’s “Monument”. Horace himself borrowed this theme from his predecessors. Poets were among the first to think: how can a person become immortal? And everyone answered this question in their own way.

Derzhavinbecame the founder of autobiographical poetry in Russian literature and was the first Russian author to choose his own glory as the theme of his poems. He devoted several works to this topic, among which should be called “Monument” (first published in 1795). The source of this poem, like a number of other works by Derzhavin, was the poetry of Horace: “Monument” is a paraphrase of the famous ode “Exegi monumentum aere perennius...”.

The lyrical subject of Derzhavin’s “Monument” lays claim to immortal glory for himself and his poetry, while relying on the authority of Horace, sanctified by tradition. In the 1790s, Derzhavin was undoubtedly the “first poet” of Russia. His odes to Felitsa were met with enthusiastic approval not only at court, but also beyond.

In “Monument,” Derzhavin reproduces the pathetic tone of the Horatian original and further enhances it, using the motif of imperial expanses: his, Derzhavin’s, poetic glory is as eternal as the glory of everything “ Slavic tribe»:

Rumors will spread about me from the White Waters to the Black Waters,

Where the Volga, Don, Neva, the Urals flow from Riphean;

Everyone will remember this among countless nations.

Geographical enumeration, with the help of which Derzhavin concretizes the breadth of the imperial expanses, were very common in Western European literature, since the Renaissance. This technique was also known in Russian literature and was used in a certain genre context - in a ceremonial ode of the Lomonosov type. A solemn ode is a genre dedicated to the glorification of a ruler. Thus, Derzhavin, using the odic form, elevates the figure of the poet, as if placing himself on the same level as the empress (which probably did not correspond to his own plan). Meanwhile, the poem again reveals that uncertainty that takes possession of the poet at the thought of his own greatness: in the next two stanzas, the claims so loudly declared at the beginning are, in principle, withdrawn.

The lyrical subject lists his poetic merits and emphasizes that he was the first to “dares” to sing Felitsa’s virtues “in a funny Russian style,” implying a transformation of the solemn ode. Next, Derzhavin talks about his ode “God” and, finally, considers his third achievement to be the fact that he “spoke the truth to the kings with a smile.” This list of merits, in which the first place is given to the accomplished poetic renewal of praise to the ruler, gives the impression of an anti-climax. Derzhavin’s idea of ​​his poetic achievements is very, very modest; he believes that he came up with a new style, with the help of which he glorified the greatness of the empress in an unusual and, moreover, very effective way: the honorary title “singer of Felitsa”, which Derzhavin was given by his contemporaries, fully corresponds to his own understanding of his poetic mission. We are again faced with the traditional perception of poetic glory that Racine spoke about. The poet's glory turns out to be not an autonomous, but a derivative value: in the first place is not Derzhavin, but Catherine II, whose glorification he serves with his poetry. We have already encountered similar thoughts in “My Image”; we also find them in “Offering to the Monarch” (1795), a poetic dedication to Catherine, which Derzhavin prefaced a handwritten collection of his poems. Here the lyrical subject also sees his main poetic merit in the fact that he sang the praises of the empress, and expresses the conviction that his lyre will sound as an “echo” of her glory and after his death “I will live by your echo.”

It seems that Derzhavin in “Monument” abandons those claims that suggest the odic motifs he used and which, as he himself feels, are too daring - he abandons them in order to be content with the usual role of a court poet, like Lomonosov or Petrov, from whom he is nevertheless distinguished by the duality of his position (not to mention Derzhavin’s personal behavior at court: it is known that he was inclined to give vent to his feelings even in the presence of the empress, allowing himself to be exceptionally, and in the eyes of his contemporaries, even scandalously inflexible for a courtier). Some uncertainty is also manifested in the tone of self-defense that is heard in the final stanza of the poem. The lyrical subject turns to his muse and encourages her to be justly proud of her merits: let her despise those who despise her and self-confidently place on herself the crown of eternal glory. The motif of the crown of glory, which Derzhavin borrowed from Horace, lacks the certainty of the forms of the original, which deals with laurel wreath, again equates him with heroes and monarchs. However, he hardly knew this:

O Muse! Be proud of your just merit,

And whoever despises you, despise them yourself;

With a relaxed hand, leisurely,

Crown your brow with the dawn of immortality.

As one might assume, these words of encouragement are directed not only against critics, but generally against people who despise poetry.

A. Pushkin took over the poetic baton from Derzhavin’s hands and made such a leap that Russian literature, which until recently was lagging behind Western models in innovative searches, quickly overtook everyone and took the leading place in the world literary process.

At the first stage of his work (1810s), Pushkin continued the tradition of depicting the muse. In the programmatic poem “To Zhukovsky” (1816), he, performing an ancient poetic ritual, swears allegiance to the muses: “In the Parnassian canopy // I bowed my knees before the muses with trepidation... // Phoebus took out my lot, and the lyre is my destiny.” The traditional choice that faced him in teenage years, was between the “cheerful”, “sad” and “solemn” muse. “Merry” inspired anacreontic songs in praise of Bacchus and Venus, sad - for elegiac love confessions, solemn - for odic glorification, denunciation and appeals. Decembrist friends urged Pushkin to choose a freedom-loving ode. The poet decided in his own way and did not refuse any of the muses. Moreover, all three muses were united by Pushkin’s one passion - the desire for freedom.

The freedom of early Pushkin has many faces. In humorous messages its synonyms are “idleness” and “revelry”; the muses here are “cute” and “young”, on a par with “laziness” and frivolous “love”; creative freedom here is akin to the riotous freedom of feasts, Phoebus (in ancient mythology- patron of creativity) next to Bacchus (god of wine) (G. Fedotov: “In the Lyceum and early St. Petersburg years, freedom first opened up to Pushkin in the self-will of revelry, over a glass of wine, in windy red tape, fanned by the muse of the 18th century”). And at the same time, the muse of young Pushkin could become formidable and strict. Thus, in “Liberty” the poet calls on the sublime odic muse - “Freedom, the proud singer”.

From the second half of the 1820s, Pushkin no longer simply continued the tradition, but comprehended it. “I want to understand you, // I am looking for meaning in you” - this is how Pushkin speaks about the mystery of life (“Poems composed at night during insomnia”, 1830); the same will to deep knowledge drives the poet when he turns to the riddle of the muse. For the mature Pushkin, the muse is a metaphor for poetic service and poetic freedom, service to the highest, freedom from the “rabble”, “crowd” and “low truths”.

The idea of ​​service is deeply traditional, it comes from the idea of ​​​​the divine nature of poetry; Pushkin, however, fully suffered for this traditional idea and thought it through to the end. Yes, Pushkin says what has been said more than once before: the singer is “chosen by God,” his lyre is “sacred”; but at the same time, the poet’s view of the place of the poet and poetry in the world is extremely sober. If in early period Pushkin, following tradition, wrote about the omnipotence of the muse (“I want to sing freedom to the world, // To defeat vice on thrones” - “Liberty”, 1917), but already at the end of the 20s he denied even the usefulness of poetry:

Go away - who cares
To the peaceful poet before you:
Feel free to turn to stone in depravity,
The voice of the lyre will not revive you. (“The Poet and the Crowd”, 1828)

The muse does not get along with fashion and the momentary impulses of the “crowd”; its element is big time. The poet himself, when he is not with the muse, lives in a short time - and then he is no better, and even worse than others:

Doesn't require a poet yet
To the sacred sacrifice Apollo,
In the cares of the vain world
He is cowardly immersed. (“Poet”, 1827).

When a muse visits him, he is transformed, becomes divinely inspired - as if he loses his temper and forgets himself:

But only a divine verb
It will touch sensitive ears,
The poet's soul will stir,
Like an awakened eagle. (“The Poet”, 1827)

From an “insignificant” state, the poet rises to biblical pathos - under the influence of inspiration:

And he [“six-winged seraph”]
came to my lips
And the sinner tore out my tongue
And idle and crafty,
And the sting of the wise snake
My frozen lips
He put it with his bloody right hand. (“The Prophet”, 1826)

What is necessary for inspired service to the muse? Freedom - from today's opinions, from the prejudices of contemporaries; renunciation of small time for the sake of big:

Poet! Do not value people's love.
There will be a momentary noise of enthusiastic praise;
You will hear the judgment of a fool and the cold laughter of the crowd,
But you remain firm, calm and gloomy.
You are the king: live alone. On the road to freedom
Go wherever your free mind takes you... (“To the Poet”, 1830)

Later creativity Pushkin (30s) - time of results. Pushkin’s position becomes even more sober and “sullen.” In the second half of the 20s, Pushkin still believed that the poet (“tsar” in the world of the muse), although he could not teach the crowd anything, could still advise the tsar (also alone in modern times, also living for the big time):

Trouble is in the country where there is a slave and a flatterer
Some are close to the throne,
And the chosen singer by heaven
He is silent, with his eyes downcast. (“To Friends”, 1828)

In the 30s, Pushkin’s muse finally turned away from modernity - both from the kings and from the people: “To depend on the authorities, to depend on the people - // Does it matter to us, God is with them...” (“From Pindemonti”, 1836) .

Late Pushkin thinks about his place in big time and, more broadly, about the mission of the poet, about the purpose of poetry. As a result, Pushkin’s final poem “Monument” (1836) appears - a brilliant arrangement of Horace’s ode. In “Monument,” the poet again returns to the question of the usefulness of poetry and gives his decisive answer to this question: “And I will be kind to the people...” With what? Not by the beauty of the poems, but by their ethical value. That is, a lesson useful for the people, a social benefit: “And I will be kind to the people, // Because I awakened good feelings with the lyre.”

After everything that Pushkin said about the “uselessness” of poetry, about the gap between the “singer” and the “crowd,” in “Monument,” again, as in the early “Liberty,” the idea of ​​an inextricable connection between the poet and the people is affirmed. However, what is meant by “the people”? “And the proud grandson of the Slavs, and the Finn // And the now wild // Tungus, and the Kalmyk, a friend of the steppes” - all of them are not in the small, but in the big time. The poet not only “ascended higher” Alexandrian pillar(Appendix 7) – symbol state power, but also overcame the power of time (“The soul in the treasured lyre // My ashes will survive and flee decay”). Therefore, Pushkin will be kind to the people not only and not so much in his time, but at all times. “The folk path to his monument will not be overgrown” as long as human culture exists (“at least one piit will be alive”). It is to this “eternal” people that Pushkin addresses himself, and for them he intends his lesson on “good feelings.”

A year before his death, as if summing up his poetic activity, Pushkin wrote the poem “Monument”. In its theme and structure, it is close to the poem of the same name by Derzhavin, who in turn took the ode of the ancient Roman poet Horace “Monument” as a formal model. 1 . Pushkin, like Derzhavin, has five stanzas in his poem, written according to the same plan. But Pushkin and Derzhavin’s thoughts about their work, their assessment of its basic meaning and significance are deeply different.

Already in the first stanza, Pushkin emphasizes the nationality of his work.

The poet “erected” for himself “ miraculous monument”, which is higher than the “Alexandrian Pillar”, that is, the column erected in honor of Alexander I on palace square In Petersburg.

Next, Pushkin speaks of his historical immortality and prophetically predicts the future wide popularity of his poetry among all the peoples of Russia. This was fully realized in Russia, when the works of the great Russian poet, translated into numerous languages, penetrated into all corners of our country and made the name of Pushkin near and dear to all the nationalities inhabiting it.

Stanza IV contains the main idea of ​​the entire poem - Pushkin’s assessment ideological meaning of his creativity. Pushkin claims that he earned the right to recognition and love of the people, firstly, by the high humanity of his creativity (“I awakened good feelings with my lyre”); secondly, his struggle for freedom (“in my cruel age I glorified freedom,” and in the version of this line he called himself a follower of the revolutionary Radishchev: “following Radishchev I glorified freedom”); thirdly, the defense of the Decembrists (“and he called for mercy for the fallen”). In the last stanza, Pushkin calls on her, “without fear of insult, without demanding a crown,” to accept praise and slander indifferently and follow her own calling.

The poem, in accordance with the theme, is written in the genre of Greco-Roman ode. In this regard, both the choice of words and intonation are distinguished by solemnity and sublimity. This is facilitated by the Slavicisms introduced by the poet: erected, head, decay, piit, the language existing in it (that is, the people), command and others. In terms of intonation, “Monument” represents a solemn speech by a poet-citizen asserting his right to historical immortality.

Florinsky S.M. Russian literature. – M., 1969, p. 132.

Horace – Derzhavin – Pushkin. Literary traditions or innovation? Both!The main purpose of the poet for Horace is imitation, for Derzhavin it is a combination of opposites, for Pushkin it is an appeal to “good feelings.” Horace and Derzhavin are proud of their services to poetry and the state, and Pushkin is proud of his universal services. The egocentric position of the poet in Horace and Derzhavin is the selfless position of the poet in Pushkin; the interested muse in Derzhavin and Horace is the dispassionate muse in Pushkin (Pushkin’s “poet” as the patron and teacher of the “muse”). Material images in Horace and Derzhavin are spiritual images in Pushkin (religious motifs in “Monument” and the problems of Pushkin’s spiritual evolution in the 1830s).

Aesthetic and civic poetry in Pushkin’s understanding are inseparable. And in the final poem “I erected a monument to myself not made by hands,” this thought again sounds like one of the main ones. The poem itself cannot be fully perceived without its historical context. It is preceded by an epigraph from the ode of the great ancient Roman poet Horace “Exegi monumentum”. The main meaning of Horace's poem is that the poet's work is a monument to him, which will stand as long as Rome stands (meaning Rome as a state). In style and rhythm, Pushkin’s poem is as close as possible, in places literally, to the free translation of Horace’s ode - the poem “Monument” by Derzhavin. That is, Pushkin consciously fits his work into the literary series of Horace - M.V. Lomonosov - G.R. Derzhavin, and the more obvious are the differences between the positions of the poets. Horace connects his monument with the glory of Rome, Derzhavin also sees the inseparability of his work and the Russian state:

And my glory will increase without fading,

How long will the universe honor the Slavic race?

Compare this with Pushkin's concept. He is not talking about the state, or even about his people. His appeal is cosmic - to humanity, to the soul of any person:

And I will be glorious as long as I am in the sublunary world

At least one piit will be alive.

The positions of Pushkin and Derzhavin in the 4th and 5th stanzas are no less strikingly different from each other. Reflecting on what he has lived and accomplished, what does Derzhavin consider his main achievement, which promises him immortality? That “I was the first to dare in a funny Russian syllable”To proclaim Felitsa’s virtues,

Talk about God in spiritual simplicity

And speak the truth to kings with a smile.

He talks about his artistic achievements“in the Russian style” and about the courage to tell the truth to the kings. Let us pay attention that Gavrila Romanovich Derzhavin seems to separate himself - the poet and himself - the citizen: after all, this was in fact the case, he was a minister and spoke “with the kings” primarily as a minister. Pushkin, who firmly refused civil service, thinks of himself as a poet and does not separate the artist and the citizen in himself:

And for a long time I will be so kind to the people,

That I awakened good feelings with my lyre,

That in my cruel age I glorified Freedom

And he called for mercy for the fallen.

Pushkin’s creative and human credo are one. He himself determines what is most important in his poetry: he did not teach people, did not preach - he awakened “good feelings” in their souls, sought to give people a powerful impulse for spiritual self-improvement, to awaken to life that goodness that is in every soul - the only , to which art can and should appeal. The contrast of the “cruel century” with Freedom, the call for mercy - these are the “good feelings” that Pushkin’s lyre awakens.

Bibliography

1. Alekseev M.P. Pushkin's poem "I erected a monument to myself...". Problems of its study // Alekseev M.P. Pushkin and world literature. L., 1997. P. 5-265.

2. Vitkovskaya L.V. “The Proud Poet” N.P. Nikoleva // Problems of studying Russian literature XVIII century. L., 2000. P. 38-50.

3. Grotto Ya. Life of Derzhavin. M., 1997 (1st ed. - 1883).

4. Pumpyansky L.V. About A. Pushkin’s ode “Monument” (first published - 1923) // Pumpyansky L.V. Classic tradition. Collection of works on the history of Russian literature. M., 2000. pp. 197-209. 3.

5. Russian writers and poets. Brief biographical dictionary. - Moscow, 2000.

6. Russian poetry. T. I: XVIII century. The Age of Classicism / Ed. preparation Vengerov S.A. St. Petersburg, 1897.

7. Stepanov V.P. On the question of the reputation of literature in the mid-18th century. // XVIII century. Sat. 14. L., 1983. P. 105-120.

8. Todd III W.M. Literature and society in the era of Pushkin. St. Petersburg, 1996.

9. Florinsky S.M. Russian literature. - M., 1969, PAGE 132.

Valkyries fly, bows sing - 1 - 2 - 3 - 1 – The cumbersome opera is coming to an end. 1 - 2 - 3 - 1- Haiduks with heavy fur coats 1 - 2 - 2 - 1 - Gentlemen are waiting on the marble stairs 1 - 2 - 2 - 1 - O. Mandelstam, “Valkyries”

A dash is a stressed syllable, numbers are the number of unstressed syllables.

Literature in the cultural system. The concept of cultural and literary tradition. Literature in the cultural system.

Tradition (from Lat. (traditio - transfer), elements of social and cultural heritage transmitted from generation to generation and persisting in certain societies and social groups During a long time. Originally this word meant “tradition.” Tradition, like T., is always oral. T. is transmitted:
1) either through practical imitation (repetition of any actions),
2) either through folklore. Adequacy of transmission is achieved through multiple repetitions, systems of symbolic texts (mythology) and actions (ritual). In pre-industrial society, most of the features of culture were transmitted through tradition, which is why it is called traditional. IN modern society it has been greatly supplanted by radio, television, the press, libraries, schools, and universities. They act as the main channels for the transmission of past knowledge. T. are certain social institutions, norms of behavior, values, ideas, customs, rituals, social institutions, tastes, views, etc. In sociology, T. is understood precisely as a mechanism for the reproduction of social institutions and norms, when the need to preserve these norms justified by the very fact of their existence in the past. T. performs a number of cultural functions:
a) establishes the continuity of culture,
b) serves as a channel for storing and transmitting information and values ​​from generation to generation,
c) act as a mechanism for socialization and inculturation of people,
d) perform a selective function of selecting appropriate patterns of behavior and values.

In cultural studies, tradition is understood as a way of implementing continuity in which trends are integrated creative activity past that are important for modern development.

The concept of literary tradition

In its meaning, the concept of literary tradition is identical to the concept of borrowing, influence and imitation. The constituent elements of a literary tradition can be the following components of poetics: stylistics, composition, rhythm and theme. These components are often transmitted by literary tradition not separately, but in combination with each other.

The area of ​​literary tradition is also quite wide: it can be both international creativity and the creativity of one people. For example, Gogol created a literary tradition in Russia, which over time spread far beyond its borders. The literary tradition is not distinguished by its intensity, so we see that Pushkin’s traditions in different times sometimes they intensify in literature, sometimes they disappear almost completely.

At first glance, an extinct tradition can not only be revived, but also take its place as the dominant one in the literary process, thanks to the influence of suitable historical conditions.

In the literary process there is the concept of parodying a literary tradition. A striking example This is Dostoevsky’s work “The Village of Stepanchikovo”, in which the author parades Gogol’s style and his ideology.

Eternal themes in literature

Traditional problems. Literary works, in their absolute majority, have stable eternal themes, the peculiarity of which is that they are practically inexhaustible, since they will always be relevant in any society. No matter how many options there are for revealing them, there is still something left unsaid every time, as well as something that lends itself to a completely different interpretation in new historical conditions.

Getting acquainted with various literary works, we are amazed at how the same theme is seen to different writers. By and large, many literary works that have come down to us describe the same plot, but divided and corrected over the centuries.

The eternal themes of literature can be divided into the following categories:

1. Ontological– themes of unidentified eternal phenomena: space, light, darkness.

2. Anthropological topics:
- the concept of being - sin, involvement, pride, human life, death.
- epoch-making events - wars, revolutions, peace, civic activities.
- the sphere of social instincts - love, friendship, family, zeal for power, social transformation of a person.

Discussions about eternal problems are also very characteristic of the literary process. Basic eternal problem, which is discussed in literary works, are the issues and problems of morality of man and society. Along with the description of this problem, the literature also indicates ways to solve it - for society it is a revolution or reform, for a person it is moral improvement.

Another traditional eternal problem is the question of society’s rejection of an individual, the so-called hero - a loner. A special place in the literary process is occupied by the clarification of universal human problems - the search for the meaning of life, the understanding of good and evil, internal torment, etc.

36. Functions of myth in culture. The concept of archetype.

Mythology goes back to those times about which almost no information has been preserved. Mythological works are usually legendary in nature. Often a myth is equated to a fairy tale. “A fairy tale is a lie” - the essence of myth. Fairy-tale consciousness - everything is perceived as obviously fantastic. Myth is something between science and the inexplicable. The myth arose as an explanation of what is happening in reality. A work of literature is based on ideas about how the world works and its phenomena. Mythology is reflected in art: art seems to be a product of mythology, based on mythological works, but at the same time is evidence of myth. Myths are characteristic of ancient, partly ancient Russian literature. In mythology, the worldview and the literary feeling coincide and become very close. Heroic images of myths have been used in art and literature of all eras. Although subject to rethinking, they nevertheless retain their meaning eternal symbols human heroism. Archetypes. The myths of different nations are considered as a source of archetypes. These are myths about what happened. the world, man, gods, about the change of seasons, about the end of the world. Contents of the collective and unconscious. An archetype is a separate element of the collective unconscious. The mythology created now is widespread. Unconscious myths are also widespread - the concept of collective unconsciousness. The layer based on mythological ideas is reflected in modern culture. The concept of A. as an instrument. research allowed see continuity in people's lives. kind, an inextricable connection of times.

37. Literary genera. Principles of classification of literary genres. (Aristotle, Hegel, modern science).

Literary genera. Principles of their classification.

Literature is difficult to divide into groups. Since ancient times, certain principles have already been developed, according to which literature was divided into several parts. Concept literary kind arose in ancient aesthetics, in the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Further, with the increase in the number of literary works, the need arose to change the principles of division into literary genres. In the 18th century, Hegel gave the best principles for the division of literature: epic - the representation of objectivity in its objectivity, lyrics - the representation of subjectivity, inner world, drama is a presentation that connects both previous types into a new integrity, in which we have the object of disclosure and the inner life of the individual. Epic and lyric are opposed to each other, and drama is a synthesis of epic and lyric. This performance has become traditional to this day. IN real life the drama takes a backseat. Literature is one of the ways to reveal the human spirit. Literature is not a spontaneous expression, but a representation in a form that has taken its form. Taking this into account, Hegel revised and clarified his formulation. From the point of view of action, Aristotle was right: - the author - an observer from the outside - epic - the internal experiences of the author - lyrics - the combination of direct demonstration of the action that takes place on stage (everything is determined by words) and the passage of the plot through the personality of the actor (objectivity of actions and subjectivity of experiences) - drama. It is impossible to clearly define what is subjective or objective. The author's position is always subjective, generated by art. imagination. “Objective” reality is not the reality of the world, but of a work of art. It can exist separately from the author - an illusion that forces us to imagine the world separately. The second illusion is that the world is depicted through the internal perception of the hero (lyrical). Options are possible when the author moves into the soul of the hero, portrays the hero as himself (S. Yesenin “About Moscow”). This is a fairly common thing in 20th century lyrics. The problem of the relationship between the hero and the author exists constantly. In dramatic works everything

General idea of ​​the literary process. Tradition and innovation

The final chapter of our book, devoted to the literary process, is perhaps the most difficult from a methodological point of view. The point is that for adequate understanding laws of the literary process, it is necessary to at least in general imagine the body of literary works of different eras and cultures. Then the logic of the formation of genres, the projection of some cultures onto other eras, and the patterns of stylistic development begin to emerge. But a novice philologist, of course, almost never has such a historical and literary base, so there is always a danger of turning the conversation into pure scholasticism: a student can honestly “memorize” some information, but the real, living content of theoretical positions is not yet available to him. It is difficult, for example, to talk about the features of the Baroque style if most readers do not know a single poet of this era.

On the other hand, it is also unrealistic to clarify each position in detail with many examples, each time plunging into the history of literature - this would require the use of enormous material that goes beyond the scope of our manual and which the student physically cannot cope with. Therefore, finding a balance between what is necessary and what is sufficient is very difficult.

Understanding all these objective difficulties, we will be forced to greatly schematize the presentation, focusing only on the most important aspects. There is simply no other way, in any case, the author does not know of a single manual where different faces literary the process would be covered quite fully and accessible for a novice philologist. There are many excellent studies devoted to different aspects of the literary process, but to bring together together there is a huge and contradictory material, making it accessible to a junior student, and even within the confines of one chapter, is a completely unrealistic task.

Therefore, the proposed chapter is only an introduction to the issue, which briefly outlines the main issues related to the study of the literary process.

The literary process is a complex concept. The term itself appeared relatively recently, already in the 20th century, and gained popularity even later, only starting in the 50s and 60s. Before this, attention was paid to some individual aspects of literary relationships, but the literary process was not comprehended in its entirety. In the full sense of the word, it has not been comprehended even today; only the main components of the literary process have been identified, and possible research methodologies have been outlined. Summarizing various views, we can say that understanding the literary process involves solving several scientific problems:

1. It is necessary to establish connections between literature and the socio-historical process. Literature, of course, is connected with history, with the life of society, it reflects it to some extent, but it is neither a copy nor a mirror. At some moments, at the level of images and themes, there is a rapprochement with historical reality, at others, on the contrary, literature moves away from it. Understanding the logic of this “attraction-repulsion” and finding transitional links connecting historical and literary processes is an extremely complex task and hardly has a final solution. As such a transitional link “from life to literature,” either religious-symbolic forms or social stereotypes (or, in the terminology of A. A. Shakhov, “social types”), which are formed in society in a certain period and embodied in art, were considered; then the socio-psychological atmosphere in society (in the terminology of Yu. B. Kuzmenko - “social emotions”); then the structure of the aesthetic ideal, reflecting both ideas about man and aesthetic traditions (for example, this approach is typical for the works of N. A. Yastrebova), etc. There were a lot of concepts, but the mechanism for transforming historical reality into works of art remains a mystery . At the same time, attempts to find this transition link stimulate the emergence of interesting research, unexpected and original concepts in both domestic and foreign aesthetics. Let's say, it is the search for these links, at the same time concrete historical and “transhistorical” (in the terminology P. Bourdieu), then there are ones of the same type for any moment in history, gives rise to the concept of “new historicism” - one of the most popular methodologies in modern Western European science. According to the theory of Pierre Bourdieu, the author of this concept, it is useless to “impose” any stories general laws, based today's system coordinates You need to start from the “historicity of the object,” that is, every time you need to enter into the historical contextof this work. And only by comparing the set with such In the image of the data obtained, including the historicity of the researcher himself, we can notice elements of commonality and “overcome” history. P. Bourdieu’s concept is popular today, but all questions it, Of course it doesn't take off. The search for an adequate methodology continues, and definitive answers are hardly possible.

2. In addition to “external” connections, that is, connections with history, psychology, etc., literature also has a system of internal connections, that is, constantly relates itself to its own history. Not a single writer of any era ever begins to write “with clean slate", he always consciously or unconsciously takes into account the experience of his predecessors. He writes in a specific genre, which has accumulated centuries-old literary experience(it is no coincidence that M. M. Bakhtin called the genre “memory of literature”), he looks for the type of literature that is closest to himself (epic, lyric, drama) and inevitably takes into account the laws adopted for this type. Finally, he absorbs many of the author’s traditions, correlating his work with one of his predecessors. All this adds up internal laws development of the literary process, which do not directly correlate with the socio-historical situation. For example, the genre of an elegiac poem, permeated with sadness and sometimes tragedy, can manifest itself in different sociohistorical situations, but will always correlate itself with the genre of elegy - regardless of the desire and will of the author.

That's why the concept of “literary process” includes the formation of generic, genre and style traditions.

3. Literary process can be viewed from another point of view: how process of formation, development and change artistic styles . This raises a number of questions: how and why styles arise, what impact they have on further development culture, how it is formed and how important it is for the development of the literary process individual style what are style dominants a certain era, etc.

It is clear that we will get any comprehensive idea of ​​the literary process only if we take into account all these issues, if these issues themselves are understood systematically and interconnected. At the early stages of mastering the science of philology, these relationships are not yet felt, therefore, further conversation will be conducted more in an analytical than in a synthetic manner; first you need to understand the different components of the literary process, and only then, having more experience, establish connections between these components.

Tradition and innovation - the most important components of the literary process. There is not a single great work of literature that is not connected by thousands of threads with the context of world culture, but in the same way it is impossible to imagine a significant aesthetic phenomenon that has not enriched world literature something of your own. Therefore, tradition and innovation are flip sides of the same coin: true tradition always presupposes innovation, and innovation is possible only against the backdrop of tradition.

One of the most famous philologists of the 20th century, M. M. Bakhtin, who constantly returned to this issue, wrote this: “Every truly significant step forward is accompanied by a return to the beginning (“originality”), or more precisely, to a renewal of the beginning. Only memory can move forward, not oblivion. The memory returns to the beginning and updates it. Of course, the terms “forward” and “backward” themselves lose their closed absoluteness in this understanding; rather, through their interaction they reveal the living paradoxical nature of movement.”

In another work, Bakhtin creates an excellent metaphor: “Great works of literature take centuries to prepare, but in the era of their creation they are filmed only ripe fruits long and complex maturation process. Trying to understand and explain a work only from the conditions of its era, only from the conditions of the immediate future, we will never penetrate into its semantic depths.” Developing this idea, the author continues: “The semantic treasures that Shakespeare put into his works were created and collected over centuries and even millennia: they were hidden in language, and not only in literary, but also in such layers vernacular, which had not yet entered literature before Shakespeare, in diverse genres and forms verbal communication, in the forms of powerful folk culture ».

Hence one of Bakhtin’s central ideas, which is directly related to the problem of tradition and innovation, is the idea of ​​world culture as dialogical space, in which various works and even different eras constantly echo, complement and reveal each other. Ancient authors predetermine modern culture, but the modern era also allows us to discover brilliant creations antiquity those meanings that were not visible and not recognized in those days. Thus, any new work is dependent on tradition, but paradoxically, the works of bygone eras depend on modern culture. The modern reader is “born” by Shakespeare, but Shakespeare also reveals to him such semantic depths that neither the contemporaries of the brilliant playwright, nor he himself could feel. Thus, time in the space of culture loses the “linearity” so familiar to us (from past to future), it turns into living movement in both directions.

V.V. Musatov considered the problem of tradition with slightly different emphases. In his opinion, any artist strives to create an “individual hypothesis of existence,” so every time he correlates the experience of his predecessors with his era and his destiny. Therefore, tradition is not just “copying” techniques, it is always a complex psychological act when someone else’s world is “tested” by one’s own experience.

So, “tradition” is a very comprehensive concept, fundamental for an adequate perception of the literary process.

So far we have talked about the philosophical, general aesthetic meaning of the term “tradition”. At a more specific level, several “problem points” can be identified related to tradition and innovation.

Firstly, it is not always easy to separate concepts “tradition”, “canon”, “imitation”, “stylization”,"imitation" etc. If today we associate with “epigonism” “empty imitation” that does not enrich culture in any way (this word itself has negative connotation), then, for example, with imitation and canon everything is more complicated. Not all imitation is epigonism; an open orientation towards some model can lead to significant aesthetic results. For example, in Russian lyric poetry the word “imitation” is allowed as a kind of genre qualifier: “In imitation of the Koran,” “In imitation of Byron,” etc. We encounter the same thing in numerous poems beginning with “From ...”: “From Heine”, “From Goethe”, etc. Interesting cases are possible here. For example, the famous program poem by A. S. Pushkin “From Pindemonti,” at first glance, openly refers to the work of the Italian poet, but in reality this is a hoax; I. Pindemonti never had such a poem. The question arises: why does Pushkin refer us specifically to this name; Is this an accident, a “trick” to deceive censorship, or did the poet still feel some kind of internal resonance between his lines and the poetry of this author? There is no consensus among scientists on this issue. But in any case, it is in this poem that Pushkin formulates his poetic credo:

Other, better rights are dear to me;

I need a different, better freedom:

Depend on the king, depend on the people -

Do we care? God be with them.

Nobody

Don't give a report...

In other cases, a direct focus on a well-known text can lead to the creation of a genuine author's masterpiece. Thus, Pushkin’s “little tragedy” “A Feast in the Time of Plague” is, as you know, the author’s translation of one act from J. Wilson’s play “City of the Plague” (1816). In general, Pushkin follows Wilson’s text, but adds two songs “on his own”: Mary’s song and the famous “Hymn to the Plague”:

Everything, everything that threatens death,

Hides for the mortal heart

Inexplicable pleasures -

Immortality, perhaps, is a guarantee!

And happy is the one who is in the midst of excitement

I could acquire and know them.

So, praise be to you, Plague,

We are not afraid of the darkness of the grave,

We will not be confused by your calling!

We drink glasses together

And the rose maidens drink the breath, -

Perhaps... full of Plague!

These insertions radically change the whole picture; from John Wilson’s not-so-famous play, Pushkin gives birth to a masterpiece.

However, in many cases, a work written “in imitation” does not have much artistic value and indicates the helplessness and insufficient talent of the author. Ultimately, as always in creativity, it’s all about talent.

It is even more difficult to “separate” tradition and canon. The canon is the norms accepted in a given culture and strictly observed.. The canon imposes rather strict restrictions on the author's freedom of expression, thus being a “binding tradition.” Archaic forms of culture, for example, many genres of folklore, were so associated with the canon that they left almost no room for authorial “liberties.” In this sense, we can talk about the “authorship” of folklore texts only metaphorically; in folklore there is a “collective author”. Ancient consciousness did not draw a line between “what is known to me” and “born by me” (in other words, between what I I know some text and the fact that I created), therefore any text was easily assigned to those who knew it. Gradually, the boundaries of “us and foe” became stronger, and in many cultures, for example, in medieval eastern poetry or in Russian icon painting, the canon began to be perceived as an “external” condition obligatory for the author. But within the canon the author’s vision of the world was already evident. That is why, for example, the Russian icon is so diverse while strictly observing the Orthodox canon.

In modern secular culture the canon does not play such a role, although, naturally, any artist experiences some restrictions imposed by the established tradition. However, these restrictions are no longer rigid, and cultural traditions are so diverse that they provide the author with almost limitless possibilities.

Secondly, speaking about tradition, we must remember that it manifests itself in different levels. Let's look at this in a little more detail.

Tradition of the theme assumes that the author, when determining the thematic spectrum of his work, constantly correlates his decision with those that have already been found by culture. Let's say, the theme of Christ's truth, confirmed by his suffering and death, finds thousands of artistic solutions that take each other into account and polemicize with each other. It is enough to recall M. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” to feel that the author simultaneously continues and violates (or develops) the established tradition. It is no coincidence that many supporters of the Orthodox canon do not accept Bulgakov’s novel, considering it “the gospel of Satan.”

Tradition of image (character). The tradition of the image or its variant, the tradition of character, involves taking into account decisions already accumulated by culture regarding a particular character. Sometimes it manifests itself directly, most often in this case some kind of famous image becomes emblematic and highlights the character of the hero. Thus, N. S. Leskov, defining his heroine Katerina Lvovna as “Lady Macbeth Mtsensk district", immediately creates a Shakespearean background, against which the heroine looks different: more tragic and larger-scale.

In other cases, echoes are visible at the level of the heroes’ psychology, their actions, and relationships. At one time, A.D. Sinyavsky, somewhat crudely, characterized the relationship between a man and a woman in classical Russian literature: “A woman was a touchstone for a man in literature. Through his relationship with her, he discovered his weakness and, compromised by her strength and beauty, climbed off the stage on which he was going to act out something heroic, and went, bent over, into oblivion with the shameful nickname of useless, worthless, extra person» .

Sinyavsky is too straightforward, but the structure of the relationship is captured quite accurately. And it is not difficult to see that this structure was proposed to Russian culture by A. S. Pushkin in “Eugene Onegin”, other authors (I. S. Turgenev, F. M. Dostoevsky, L. N.Tolstoy) one way or another already followed the Pushkin tradition.

Tradition of the genre – one of the most powerful in world culture. Genre represents forms of author’s self-expression found and adopted by literature. The genre fixes the features of the narrative, and - in many cases - the theme, and the types of pathos, and the features of conflicts, etc. Therefore, the chosen genre is always to some extent binding. Let's say, a poet writing an ode inevitably finds himself in the depths of the thousand-year tradition of this genre. Although there is a huge distance between the odes of M.V. Lomonosov and, for example, “Ode to the Revolution” by V. Mayakovsky, many common features, dictated by the tradition of the genre, are striking.

National tradition associated with the system of values ​​​​accepted in a particular culture: ethical, aesthetic, historical, etc. As a rule, the artist absorbs world culture through the national, the reverse way practically impossible. The Russian writer is open to world cultural experience, but this experience is refracted through the cultural experience of the nation. This was well reflected by M. Yu. Lermontov in his youthful poem:

No, I'm not Byron, I'm different

A still unknown chosen one,

How he is a wanderer persecuted by the world,

But only with a Russian soul.

The poet declares his openness to Byron’s world, his closeness to the brilliant English bard, but Byron is refracted through the “Russian soul.” As a result, we have not one of Byron's countless imitators, but a great Russian poet who has gained worldwide fame.

Growing from the depths national culture a poet can become a world poet. But, if you imagine some abstract “world poet,” he will not be able to become a national poet. The now popular expression “man of the world” should not be absolutized. People of the world are not born, but become.

Tradition of artistic techniques combines lexical, syntactic, rhythmic, plot-compositional, etc. techniques for constructing a text. In many cases, the tradition of techniques catches the eye, for example, a poet who writes with a “ladder” will immediately be in line with Mayakovsky’s tradition. In other cases, it is less recognizable, but any work in one way or another uses already found artistic techniques. Like any tradition, the tradition of techniques is enriched by new finds, becoming more complex and multifaceted.

Style tradition in a sense, it synthesizes all the possibilities outlined above. Style is precisely composed of figurative, thematic, genre, etc. unity. Here we can talk about author’s traditions (for example, Pushkin’s or Nekrasov’s) or about the tradition of certain movements or even eras (for example, about the traditions of antiquity in the culture of classicism, about the romantic tradition in modern poetry, etc.).. 6, No. 16, Jun., 1927.

Sinyavsky A. (Abram Tertz) What is socialist realism // http://antology.igrunov.ru/authors/synyavsky/1059651903.html

Faulkner’s work refracted various impulses, literary, philosophical, aesthetic influences, which he assimilated and processed organically and originally. The sources that fed his artistic methodology were the Bible, the works of Shakespeare, Dickens, Flaubert, and Tolstoy. Among his favorite books are “The Brothers Karamazov”: their author was especially close to Faulkner in philosophical and aesthetic terms; he was compared to him. The experience of Balzac, the creator of a huge fresco, was also important for Faulkner - “ Human Comedy" Faulkner created something similar using specific “southern” material in “The Saga of Yoknepatawf.”

Philosophical basis.

As a true American, Faulkner had no special interest in theoretical concepts. Nevertheless, in his works one can find either direct or hidden ideas of various philosophical schools. Bergson's intuitionism, perceived by Faulkner in the interpretation of William James, was reflected, in particular, in the story “The Bear”.

In Faulkner's work, the existentialist worldview also makes itself felt. The ideas of Sartre and Camus, Faulkner's propagandists in France, corresponded to the life philosophy of the author of The Sound and the Fury, who acutely felt the tragedy of the human lot, the loneliness of the individual in a chaotic world, his subordination to dark irrational passions. At the same time, Faulkner was closer to the psychologism and artistic methodology of Camus than to the coldish rationality of Sartre. However, it would be incorrect to unequivocally classify Faulkner as an existentialist writer. The main thing for Faulkner was a heartfelt sense of life, characters, and conflicts as a given, and not as illustrations of philosophical theories.

Faulkner is a complex and contradictory artist. Apparently, the debate between supporters of two points of view was unproductive: those who proclaim him a realist, and those for whom he is a modernist in “ pure form" It is also difficult to prove the thesis that, having started as a modernist, Faulkner followed the “path to realism.” Faulkner created without thinking about literary definitions. His work combined the features of realism, modernism, naturalism, symbolism, and romanticism.

Poetics. The meaning of Faulkner's works cannot be understood without taking into account the peculiarities of his style. For her, it is usual to “coexist” everyday authenticity with increased romantic expressiveness, a departure from the usual life-likeness. Individual situations, episodes, images, plot “moves” acquire an allegorical, parable meaning. Therefore, Faulkner's works evoke a fairly wide range of critical points of view. In the USA, for example, a collection of critical works about the story “The Bear” was published, which presents more than ten different interpretations of the work.

Faulkner's characters are usually static. They do not develop, do not change during the course of action. The “genetic” qualities inherent in them are realized. These qualities are given in a concentrated, “condensed” form: heroes grow to the level of symbols. Thus, in the Snopes trilogy, Flem's daughter is the embodiment of blossoming female flesh; Flem himself - greed; poor Mink - blind bitterness, a product of poverty; Linda - sacrifice, fanatical devotion to an idea. Faulknerian details are also expressive: the hat, the tiny butterfly of Flem, who never stops chewing the “emptiness.” The characteristics of his heroes are often the technique of “biologizing” the characters, emphasizing the animal nature in them: Mink is compared to a poisonous snake, Flem is compared to a spider.

Reading Faulkner is not an easy task. The style of his novel is multifaceted and multilayered. Sometimes the thread of the narrative is not led by the author, but by one or even several narrators. The event appears with different points vision, in different psychological dimensions. There is a shift in time layers, as in the novel “The Sound and the Fury.”

Tradition

Tradition

TRADITION (lat. tradere - to transfer). This term is also used in the literature in relation to a successive connection that unites a number of successive literary phenomena, and in relation to the results of such a connection, to the stock of literary skills. In its meaning, tradition comes into contact with imitation, influence and borrowing (see these words), differing from them, however, in that traditional material, being generally recognized in a given literary culture. environment, forms part of its artistic use, sanctioned by custom, which has become common property - while imitation, influence and borrowing deal with material that lies outside the given environment, not yet assimilated by it. However, logically different, these concepts are difficult to distinguish in practice, since most literary phenomena are connected to each other not by one, but by several connections, and tradition is often intertwined with direct influence, imitation and borrowing: thus, Lermontov’s poetry reflects, on the one hand, the Byronic tradition, which entered Russian literature through Pushkin, on the other hand, reveals a number of direct imitations of Byron.

All the elements of poetics can serve as the material of a literary tradition: theme, composition, style, rhythm... But for the most part, these elements are transmitted by tradition not separately, but in some combination with each other, in accordance with the constant connection that exists between them in art words in general. However, in relation to individual elements of poetics, a certain gradation can be established in the tradition: thus, within the literature of a given people, language has the greatest stability, ideas - the least.

Region A literary tradition can be both the creativity of one people and international creativity: we can talk about the Gogol tradition in Russian literature, about the classical tradition in world literature.

Intensity literary tradition is uneven: the tradition either weakens, then strengthens, such as the Pushkin tradition, then finally stops. An extinct tradition can be revived, consciously or unconsciously, under the influence of favorable historical conditions. But the material of an extinct tradition never completely dies out: even if they disappear General terms, maintaining the tradition, it remains as literary relics.

In any literary process there is a combination of two principles: traditions and personal creativity. Where personal creativity deepens tradition, we can talk about literary evolution; where personal creativity rebels against tradition, it creates a literary revolution; in practice, these two phenomena never occur separately: thus, Russian symbolism, revolutionary against the classical tradition that preceded it, unconsciously continued to participate in the general literary evolution that originated from Pushkin.

When personal creativity rebels against tradition, it often creates in turn new tradition: Thus, romanticism, being an anti-traditional beginning in relation to classical art, itself laid the foundation for a new, romantic tradition.

Personal creativity can establish new traditions without breaking with old ones; this was the case with Pushkin, who absorbed both the classical and romantic traditions into his poetry. Various traditions can coexist, sometimes uniting into one whole, sometimes only in some parts touching each other.

Often a protest against an established tradition is expressed not by creating something new, but by reviving old tradition(cf. slogans “Back to Pushkin”, “Back to Ostrovsky”). However, often, the desire to revive tradition gives rise to only stylization, i.e. conscious imitation of the techniques of this art. V. Bryusov’s work on Pushkin’s “Egyptian Nights” can be called such stylization. This example clearly shows that a stylist can never get rid of the influence of his literary school So what literary tradition does not obey the writer’s whim, but can develop only when it encounters favorable soil for this in the appropriate environment or personality: through the consciously forged Pushkin style by Bryusov, the appearance of a symbolist poet shines through (see the book by R. M. Zhirmunsky “Valery Bryusov and the Legacy of Pushkin” , Petersburg 1921).

Dostoevsky’s work clearly proves that belonging to a particular tradition does not exclude the possibility of parodying it: undoubtedly bound by tradition with Gogol, Dostoevsky in a number of works (“The Double”, “The Village of Stepanchikovo”) parodies Gogol’s style and Gogol’s ideology. (Yuri Tynyanov talks about this in detail. “Dostoevsky and Gogol”, published by “Opoyaz” 1921).

Evolution, the resurrection of tradition, parody - these are the forms that the attitude of the writer's individuality to the traditional heritage takes. In the absence of a creative attitude, tradition turns into a stencil (see this word).

Like fiction, and literary criticism is subject to well-known traditions: they are reflected both in the methods of work and in the conclusions. Again, just as it happens in fiction, tradition in literary criticism can become both an element of evolution and an element of inertia, depending on how much it evokes a creative attitude towards it in a given literary environment. The creative attitude in this area, as in the area of ​​any research, coincides with the critical attitude.

Valentina Dynnik. Literary encyclopedia: Dictionary literary terms: In 2 volumes / Edited by N. Brodsky, A. Lavretsky, E. Lunin, V. Lvov-Rogachevsky, M. Rozanov, V. Cheshikhin-Vetrinsky. - M.; L.: Publishing house L. D. Frenkel, 1925

Synonyms:

See what “Tradition” is in other dictionaries:

- (from Latin traditio transfer) an anonymous, spontaneously formed system of samples, norms, rules, etc., which guides a fairly large and stable group of people in their behavior. T. can be so broad as to cover everything... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Tradition- TRADITION (lat. tradere to convey). This term in literature is used both in relation to a successive connection that unites a number of successive literary phenomena, and in relation to the results of such a connection, to the stock of literary skills. By … Dictionary of literary terms

- (lat. traditio). Tradition, the way in which various incidents, events and dogmas are transmitted from year to year. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. TRADITION of lat. traditio, from tra, trans, through, and dare,… … Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

tradition- and, f. tradition f. lat. traditio transmission, tradition. 1. Historically established and passed down from generation to generation experience, practice in what form. region public life, reality, etc. National traditions. Revolutionary... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

Custom, custom; heritage, accepted, establishment, value, custom, it was customary, unwritten law, so accepted, so established, norm, established Dictionary of Russian synonyms. tradition see custom Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical... ... Synonym dictionary

tradition- (from the Latin traditio transmission, narration) historically established knowledge, forms of activity and behavior transmitted from generation to generation, as well as accompanying customs, rules, values, ideas. T. warehouse... Great psychological encyclopedia

TRADITION, traditions, women. (Latin traditio, lit. transmission). 1. That which passes or has passed from one generation to another through tradition, oral or literary transmission (for example, ideas, knowledge, views, modes of action, tastes, etc.). Traditions… … Dictionary Ushakova

The dead rule the living. Auguste Comte Tradition is just nostalgia walking around in public in full dress uniform. Andrew Marr Traditionalists are pessimists about the future and optimists about the past. Lewis Mumford Tradition cannot be... Consolidated encyclopedia of aphorisms

- (traditio, transfer) the establishment of actual dominion over things on the part of their previous owner in favor of a new one who acquires them into ownership or possession. Lawyers think that in order to acquire a property right, that is, to establish... ... Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron