Genealogy of P. P. Ulitin's prose The question of Ulitin's aesthetic predecessors is complex. First of all, this is not Rozanov, with whom he was sometimes compared: unlike Rozanov, Ulitin is not frank and does not strive for maximum openness, his speech is always from someone else’s person,

Korobkin’s idle talk is so blatant that the secretary of the district committee Martynov “wrinkled his face as if from a severe headache,” and the chairman of one of the collective farms, Demyan Vasilyevich Openkin, could not stand it, and in his speech, among other things, said: “Let knowledgeable person will tell us what we ourselves did not have time to read or, perhaps, what we were not able to understand. He will tell us - we will then pass it on to people. But when here Comrade Korobkin proves to us that a pig is a useful animal!.. This is impossible to tolerate! And let’s be honest, we have to listen to a lot of such speeches at regional meetings. A man will come out to the podium and rumble, rumble, like a box! Afterwards you will begin to remember: what was he talking about? Nothing! It’s all the same: “mobilize efforts!”, “raise to heights!” Sometimes even the chairman won’t stop. Everyone is already shouting: “Enough!”, “Regulations!” - and he rumbles. It’s as if he’s being paid piecework for every word. And we sit in the hall and think: who will pay for our time? Five hundred people are sitting here - how much of our time you have wasted! I wish I could recalculate it into man-hours! The police fine drivers for idling. There are ton-kilometers. There are man-hours here. Great value too! And there is no one to fine these time wasters!”

Ovechkin wrote his essays in the 50s. We have all matured over the years, the culture of the people has risen higher, and attention to speech has become sharper. But boxes exist. They don't want to relearn. They are too lazy to gain intelligence.

Idle talk can be cured and cured - with work and intelligence. A. T. Tvardovsky correctly and accurately wrote about the attitude to the word as deed:

When serious reasons
The chest has matured for speech,
The beginning of a common complaint is
Like, there are no words - don’t get me started.

Everything is words - for every essence,
Everything that leads to battle and labor,
But, repeated in vain,
They lose weight like flies die.

Yes, there are words that burn like flames
That they shine far and deep - to the bottom,
But their substitution of words
Treason may be equal.<...>

And I, whose daily bread is the word,
The foundation of all my foundations
I am strict for such a charter,
To limit the waste of words;

So that the heart feeds them with blood,
So that their living mind closes;
So as not to waste haphazardly
From capitals capital,

It is not the sound of ossification,
Not just some material, -
No, a word is also a thing,
As Lenin often repeated.

PRECISION AND BRIEFS ARE THE FIRST ADVANTAGES OF PROSE

WHAT IS THIS - ACCURACY?

The history of the language has assigned a special meaning or set of meanings to each word. Yes, word newspaper has the meaning of ‘a periodical publication, usually in the form of several large format sheets, informing readers about current events in various areas of life.’ A word similar in meaning magazine names 1) a periodical publication in the form of a book or brochure, which publishes, as a rule, more thorough information than a newspaper and on a narrower range of issues; 2) a book or notebook for periodically recording events ( attendance log, accounting and income log etc.)".

Anyone who speaks Russian will unmistakably call such publications as “New World”, “Science and Life”, “Krokodil” magazines, and such publications as “Pravda”, “Izvestia”, “Trud” - newspapers. Words magazine And newspaper will be used exactly according to their meanings. But let’s try to go to the window where the postal employee is sitting and ask: Please accept a subscription to the newspaper "Problems of Philosophy". Most likely, the postal employee will either correct us: You are mistaken - there is no newspaper "Problems of Philosophy", there is a magazine, or will say something not very polite like: Citizen, you don’t know what you want to subscribe to - there is no newspaper “Problems of Philosophy”. Well, the postal employee will turn out to be essentially right: after all, we have violated one of the main requirements for good speech - the requirement of accuracy.

One of the students said about one literary hero: " He's got a bunch of kids". In common parlance the expression is used a bunch (a whole bunch) of children. But, firstly, this colloquial expression is unsuitable for strictly literary speech. And secondly, the word accumulated clearly does not accurately convey the author's thoughts. Can accumulate money, gold, knowledge, but you can't" accumulate children".

Here is another example of inaccurate speech: " Our ideas must be the result of material life, and whoever built his ideas without based on this could not give the right idea". It is unlikely that the author of this statement understood himself: after all, every word here is inaccurate. And the consequence of the sum of inaccuracies was a completely incorrect, and, in addition, an extremely confused idea of ​​​​the relationship of ideas to the conditions of the material life of society. Why is the author so inaccurate expressed a thought? Obviously because he did not know properly what he was talking about. So inaccuracy of speech can arise not only as a result of poor knowledge of the language, but also as a result of poor knowledge of the subject about which something is being said.

A speech in which the use of words fully corresponds to their linguistic meanings can be called accurate. In language, in particular in literary language, individual words are assigned very specific meanings. Therefore, speaking and writing accurately means preserving the meanings that have been established in the language. It is forbidden " Zhanna borrowed me her last five rubles", because borrow means 'to borrow, to borrow"; you can't" I borrowed five rubles from Zhanna", because to lend means 'to lend'." And, of course, completely illiterate" I lent Zhanna my five rubles".

However, the accuracy of speech depends not only on the choice of words, but also on the author’s ability or inability to strictly correlate word and object, word and action, word and concept. Therefore, the definition of exact speech just proposed will have to be changed somewhat: it is not just a matter of observing or violating linguistic laws - it is also a matter of more or less strict correlation between the word and what the word denotes.

So the accuracy of speech is the result of a complex interaction of knowledge of the reality being depicted, knowledge of the system of verbal meanings, observation and close attention of the author of the speech to its meaning.

The classics of Russian literature and language science constantly reminded us - with their speech creativity and their statements about language - how important it is for society that the word of a writer and scientist be extremely accurate. Who doesn’t know Pushkin’s saying: “Precision and brevity are the first virtues of prose”? By the way, it is no coincidence that A.S. Pushkin placed next to accuracy And brevity. After all, the more precisely the words are used, the less they are needed to express the required content.

M. Gorky was mercilessly harsh and demanding of those writers who did not want to study the amazing language of their people. The great Soviet writer tirelessly taught youth accuracy of speech. One of Gorky’s creative behests is that “words must be used with the strictest precision,” that “every phrase, every word must have a precise and clear meaning to the reader.” Alexey Maksimovich spared neither time nor effort to protect the accuracy and purity of his native word and harshly reproached individual writers for damaging the language. For example, in the article “Concerning a Controversy,” Gorky speaks about the language of V. Ilyenkov: “Attempts to write figuratively lead Ilyenkov to the following effects: “Telezhkin, straight as a stake, stuck his head into the ceiling.” A man runs, “overtaking him, as if torn off by the wind, his own deathly yellow leg flew through the air." The author wanted to make it “scary,” but he made it funny. And since the man was running at night, in the “pre-storm darkness,” he could hardly see the color of his leg."

M. Gorky’s numerous instructions to young and “venerable” writers on language issues are of great importance at the present time - and not only for writers, poets, critics, but also for everyone who cherishes the culture of the Russian word. It is impossible not to listen to Gorky’s advice and testament: “... it is extremely difficult to find the exact words and put them in such a way that a lot is said by a few, “so that words are cramped, thoughts are spacious.” This Gorky instruction is consonant with the already quoted statement of A. S. Pushkin: “Accuracy and brevity are the first advantages of prose. It requires thoughts and thoughts - without them, brilliant expressions serve nothing." And this correspondence in views on artistic speech is not accidental: after all, the entire history of Russian classical literature is marked by a continuous struggle for realistic accuracy, purity, and expressiveness of language.

So, precise speech arises when the speaker or writer finds the only words needed in a certain utterance that cannot be replaced by any others, and therefore, to the greatest extent provide the expression of the thoughts, moods, and experiences necessary for the author. Such speech was created, developed, improved and made exemplary by the great representatives of national Russian culture. The accuracy of the speech of A. S. Pushkin, M. Yu. Lermontov, I. S. Turgenev, N. S. Leskov, A. P. Chekhov, M. Gorky is perfect and amazing. Chekhov, as a stylist, as Gorky put it, is unattainable.

About Russian prose

D’Alembert once said to La Harpe: “Don’t praise Buffon to me, this man writes: The noblest of all man’s acquisitions was this proud, ardent animal, etc. Why not just say horse?

La Harpe is surprised at the dry reasoning of the philosopher. But d'Alembert is very clever man- and, I confess, I almost agree with his opinion.

Let me note in passing that it was about Buffon, the great painter of nature. His style, blooming, full, will always be a model descriptive prose. But what can we say about our writers who, considering it base to simply explain the most ordinary things, think to enliven children's prose with additions and sluggish metaphors? These people will never say friendship without adding: this sacred feeling, whose noble flame, etc. They should say: early in the morning - and they write: as soon as the first rays of the rising sun illuminated the eastern edges of the azure sky - oh, how new and fresh it all is , is it better only because it is longer?

I’m reading the report of some theater lover: this young pet of Thalia and Melpomene, the generously gifted Apol... my God, put it on: this young good actress - and continue - be sure that no one will notice your expressions, no one will say thank you.

A despicable zoil, whose indefatigable envy pours out its soporific poison on the laurels of the Russian Parnassus, whose tiresome stupidity can only be compared with his tireless anger... my God, why not just say to the horse: in short, Mr. Publisher of such and such a magazine.

Voltaire may be honored the best example prudent style. He ridiculed sophistication in his Micromegas subtle expressions Fontenelle, who could never forgive him for that1).

Precision and brevity are the first virtues of prose. It requires thoughts and thoughts - without them brilliant expressions serve no purpose. Poems are a different matter (however, it would not hurt our poets to have a much more significant sum of ideas in them than is usually the case with them. With memories of past youth, our literature will not move far forward).

The question is, whose prose is the best in our literature. The answer is Karamzin. This is still not great praise - let's say a few words about this venerable one. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1) Speaking of the syllable, should I say in this case - I couldn’t forgive him for that - or I couldn’t forgive him for that? It seems that these words depend not on the verb could, controlled by the particle not, but on the indefinite mood to forgive, requiring accusative case. However, N.M. Karamzin writes differently. (Pushkin's note)

Chapter Twelve.

“PRECISION and BRIEFS ARE THE FIRST ADVANTAGES OF PROSE”

By 1830, a theory of the style of both writers was emerging (the most important part of the aesthetics of Pushkin and Stendhal, reflecting not only their linguistic position, but also more general phenomena - philosophical views, vision of the world, ethical principles).

Brought up on the ideas of the French Enlightenment, rationalism and sensationalism, both writers strive for an objective depiction of life, and literary language in their understanding becomes the most important guarantee of truthfulness. artistic painting peace. That is why both writers value the precise and rigorous language of scientific research so highly.

The theory of style of Stendhal and Pushkin develops in the struggle with the linguistic position of other literary movements, but the critical approach did not at all exclude the creative assimilation by both writers of the best achievements in the field of style of the previous and modern times. literary tradition. Without accepting the “high” style of classicism, Stendhal and Pushkin highly appreciate the transparent and strict prose of French moralists (Pascal, La Rochefoucauld, La Bruyère).

Artistic truth is the main ethical and aesthetic principle of both writers - dictates, first of all, the rejection of the false conventions of existing literary styles. To speak truthfully meant for them to speak simply and clearly. These demands of rationalist poetics become for both writers at the time of struggle with the style of the romantics the most important guarantee of truth. “Simplicity is the first of my deities,” states Stendhal (11, 285). Pushkin in his note On Prose (1822) calls on writers to “explain themselves simply” (XI, 18). It's about not about primitive “simplification”, but about complex and enriched linguistic “simplicity”. Both writers contrast “simplicity” and “clarity” with “vagueness,” which they associate with lies. Stendhal admitted that his love for mathematics was determined by the “sincerity” of logical definitions: “I loved and now still love mathematics for its own sake, as not allowing for hypocrisy and obscurity - two properties that disgust me to the extreme” (13, 86). In the eloquence of the romantics, Stendhal saw a reflection of “the most fashionable vice of the nineteenth century - hypocrisy” (11, 3). He wrote: “Everything vague is false” (11, 330). Stendhal, mentally “trying on” his works to the tastes of readers of 1880 (his goal: “to be somewhat original in 1880” (15, 316), thinks through innovative poetics not only at the level of plot and structure of images, but also at the level of language. Thus, in a letter to Balzac dated October 16, 1840, he (alas, with unjustified optimism) wrote: “All political swindlers have always had a declamatory and eloquent tone, and in 1880 they will inspire disgust” (15 , 323). From the first steps of prose writing, Stendhal willingly used the oppositions “truth - false”, “clear - vague” for political allusions. In the book History of Painting in Italy, which is replete with seditious and free-thinking hints, he casually notes “the love of sovereigns for a vague style ". Later he wrote: “A dark and pretentious style is chosen by those who defend a bad cause, and people serving a just cause try to express thoughts as clearly as possible" (11, 425). Pushkin, a master of political subtext, also knows how to connect the characteristic with political associations. Defining the style of one of his short letters to E.M. Khitrovo, distinguished by directness, he recalls the style of the Jacobins: “Forgive my laconicism and Jacobin style” (XIV, 32). Yu. M. Lotman suggested that Pushkin was familiar with the speeches of Saint-Just and the revolutionary bulletins of the Jacobins. However, for them, what is more important is not the political, but the aesthetic aspect of the “clear - dark” opposition: the demand for “simplicity” and “clarity” meant a decisive rejection of the stylistic norms of the era.

Fighting for a “truthful” style, both writers oppose the artificial “beauty” of style: rhetorical periphrases, pointless metaphors, formal verbal embellishments. “But what can we say about our writers who, considering it base to simply explain the most ordinary things, think to enliven children's prose with additions and sluggish metaphors? - asked Pushkin. “These people will never say friendship without adding: this sacred feeling, whose noble flame, etc...” (XI, 13).

Both writers criticize the artificiality of both the “high” style of the classicists and the “new” style of the sentimentalists, but the main object of their criticism is the style of the romantics. “Sounding phrases”, “empty rhetoric”, “forced pathos”, “petty affectation”, “inflated common words“- such derogatory definitions do not leave the pages of Stendhal’s works on aesthetics. Chateaubriand especially gets it from him, whose “elegant” style, intended, according to Stendhal, “to hide the poverty of thought,” becomes the target of his constant ridicule.

Simplicity and clarity of prose are organically connected, according to Stendhal and Pushkin, with richness in thought: “prose requires thoughts, thoughts and thoughts - without it, brilliant expressions serve no purpose” (XI, 18). Stendhal puts forward the same demand for verbal “asceticism”: “... I want to conclude as much as possible more thoughts in as few words as possible" (7, 196). The writer, Stendhal believes, is obliged to look for the “single” word that most correctly expresses the thought: “the exact, the only, necessary, inevitable word” (11, 271). The same is Pushkin’s requirement: “Accuracy and brevity are the first advantages of prose” (X1, 18).

The principle of economy art material, put forward by them, extends not only to lexical selection, but also to syntax. The rounded, smooth periods of the prose of the romantics (especially Chateaubriand) irritate Stendhal. He will call his style “chopped” (“le style coupé”) and will be proud of the lack of affectation and prettiness in it: “... not a single pompous phrase, style has never set the paper on fire<...>words such as terrible, majestic, terrible were never used” (11, 3). The attitude of both writers to Rousseau's style is characteristic. From his youth, in love with the “Geneva hermit,” Stendhal over time became increasingly intolerant of his exalted style; from 1804, he rejected the “language of ecstasy.” He later admits that it was not so easy for him: “I make every effort to be dry.” Both writers associate the demand for truth with the concepts of “nationality” and “public accessibility” of language. Like Courier, who declared in his Pamphlet on Pamphlets (1825) “truth is common to the people,” Stendhal and Pushkin associate the concept of “truthfulness” of style with its closeness to vernacular. Already in his first work devoted to the problem of style, On the dangers threatening the Italian language, Stendhal, opposing the demand of the Italian “purists” to clear the dictionary of “rude” words, insisted on the need for communication literary language with lively folk speech. “The main weapon of a people’s genius is its language,” he wrote. - What good does it do for a dumb person to be smart? How much different is there from a dumb person who speaks a language that only he understands? Later, in his treatise on Racine and Shakespeare, Stendhal will criticize Racine for the fact that, to please the viewer, he artificially “cleaned” the language of his tragedies from everything “common.”

Pushkin also emphasizes the importance of the living connection between the literary language and folk speech, the beneficial effect of their mutual influence. It is curious that he, like Stendhal, refers to the example of the Italians: “ Colloquial common people <...>is also worthy of in-depth research. Alfieri studied Italian language at the Florentine market: it’s not bad for us sometimes to listen to Moscow maltmeal. They speak amazingly pure and correct language"(XI, 149).

From this point of view, for the artistic practice of Stendhal and Pushkin, the assimilation of the traditions of writers who introduced a common element into the language of their works becomes of great importance. For Stendhal it is, first of all, Moliere and Lafontaine, for Pushkin it is Fonvizin and Krylov. It is also important that they themselves know well the vernacular, the language of the streets and oral anecdote.

Stendhal gave his “formula” of style in the treatise of Racine and Shakespeare: “only that play can be called a “truly romantic tragedy”, “the language of which is simple, lively, sparkling with naturalness, devoid of tirades” (2, 270) And Pushkin, creating at the same time The time of Boris Godunov, which he also, independently of Stendhal, called a “truly romantic” tragedy, embodied these requirements in the best possible way.

However, closeness in theory does not always mean similarity in artistic practice. Unlike Pushkin, who values ​​harmony in style (“ noble simplicity”, XI, 73), “proportionality” (XI, 52), “conformity” (XI, 52), Stendhal does not strive for it; his prose contains a lot of “extra” function words and lexical repetitions. He is not at all concerned with finishing the style; he deliberately allows for roughness and clumsy designs. The principled position of “style egotism” earned him the reputation of a “skimping” stylist. And yet there is an area where the similarity in the stylistic manner of Pushkin and Stendhal is striking: autobiographical prose (correspondence, diaries, travel essays), which in highest degree characterized by a quality defined by Pushkin as “the charm of a free, careless story.” Otherwise, as stylistic artists, they differ markedly from one another. However, it is not this difference that is significant, but what unites them: both writers are the first in European and Russian literature to create a theory of realistic style and provide an example of its artistic embodiment.

“True romanticism” is the direction of the transitional stage on the path to mastering the realistic method. His poetics still have a lot in common with romanticism. However, in the field of language and style, the break with the romantics is most noticeable and fundamental; it is here that realism first consolidates its position.

Comparison with Stendhal helps to understand more deeply literary process in Russia. Pushkin's language reform opens new stage in the development of Russian literary style. If previously everything literary trends(classicism, sentimentalism, romanticism) followed the more developed European stylistic tradition in Russia, focusing on it and trying to catch up with it, then with Pushkin the stage begins when, in the field of style, Russian realism becomes on a par with the best European examples.