The role of the writer as the creator of a literary work. In a literary work

Rental block

The word “author” is used in literary studies in several meanings. First of all, it means a real person. In other cases, it denotes a certain view of reality, the expression of which is the entire work (the image of the author). Finally, this word is used to refer to some. phenomena characteristic of certain genres and types (the author is the narrator, narrator (in epic works) or lyrical hero (in lyric poetry))” (B.O. Korman). Biogr. the author can choose one of three forms of narration FROM THE AUTHOR (objective form of narration, from the 3rd person): apparent absence in the work. any subject of the story. ON BEHALF OF THE NARRATOR, BUT NOT THE HERO. The narrator manifests himself in emotional statements about the characters, their actions, relationships, and experiences. “Belkin's Tales” by Pushkin IN THE PERSON OF THE HERO. The author conveys the narration to the hero when he wants to reveal his hero more deeply or in the case of depicting a positive hero. Example: “The Captain's Daughter” by Pushkin, where the narration is told on behalf of Grinev. Forms of the author’s presence in the work (lyrical digressions) Direct expression by the author of the epic work of his thoughts and feelings are revealed in lyrical digressions. Remarks - author's comments about the behavior or character of characters. HERO - the main or one of the main characters in a prose or dramatic work; G.l. may be "major" or "minor". The hero’s external appearance is created by his portrait, profession, age, history (or past), and name. Famous literary characters live a completely independent life independent of their creators, not only in literary texts. Methods and forms of author's presence in literary work: The forms of authorial presence depend on the type of literature. -Epic is a story. On grammatical basis There are 3 forms of narration: - from the 1st person - from the 3rd person - improperly direct speech - the speech of the hero, not enclosed in quotation marks. Such speech is formally a narrative, but in content it is similar to the character’s speech. 1st person narration is a personal narration, 3rd person narration is impersonal. Very often, in a personal narration, the narrator is personified; in an impersonal narration, the narrator is non-personalized or the narrator. -Drama - there are no forms of the author’s presence, there are only his “traces”, because form of verbal expression in drama - dialogue or polylogue - there is no author, there are only heroes. The clearest presence of the author is in the lyrics. Korman's classification: 1. The author himself is close to the narrator in the epic, this is manifested in those works where the subject of the image is objects of the world. The world in the lyrics is always psychologized (the inner world of the hero is expanded). The degree of secrecy of the author in the text: -3rd person -1st person (plural). “We” is a generalized carrier of consciousness. In such texts the form is observation or reflection. 2. Author-narrator - manifests itself in those texts that talk about the fate of a person. In the modern classification, these 2 forms are combined and speak of a lyrical narrator. 3. The lyrical hero is the subject of speech through whom the biographical and emotional-psychological traits of the author are expressed. The lyrical hero is a monologue form of the author's expression in the text. 4. Role hero - the indirect expression of the author in the text through the sociocultural type of the past or present. Role-playing hero is a dialogical form. 5. Poetic world - the author’s subjectivity is expressed in the world or in what is depicted. 6. Interpersonal subject - the form realizes different points of view on the world.

We have the largest information database in RuNet, so you can always find similar queries

This topic belongs to the section:

Literature. Answers

What is literature? How was literary theory born and how did it grow? Verse and prose. the nature of the verse. Syllabic-tonic system of versification What is an epic novel? Types of Comedy

This material includes sections:

Literature in the understanding of the Russian formal school. Defamiliarization. Automation/de-automation. Naked reception

Literature in the understanding of structuralism: what's new?

Poststructuralism is a general name for a number of approaches in social, humanitarian and philosophical knowledge

Image. Can literature exist without images?

Imitation, stylization, parody

Basic systems of versification

Meter and rhythm in verse

Strophic. Main types of stanzas

The birth of rhythym, its flourishing and degradation

Sound recording in verse. Melodica

Repetition in literature. Repetition in verse is not at all the same as in prose

Literary genres: epic, lyric, drama

Heroic, sublime, comic

Varieties of comic. Humor and satire

Main epic genres

Main lyrical genres

Basic dramatic genres. What is a dramatic text?

Short story and short story: what's the difference?

Types of novel

What is composition? What does it include?

Types of tragedy

How does the drama genre differ from the tragedy genre?

The plot and its composition. How does a plot differ from a plot?

What does the character consist of?

Author and text. Forms of the author's presence in the work

Who tells the story. Forms of storytelling. Author, narrator, hero

What is skaz?

How does literature develop and how can its development be described? Theory of artistic methods/literary movements and other concepts of literary evolution

What is classicism?

What is romanticism?

Introduction to the course "Corporate Governance"

Course of lectures on the discipline “Corporate Governance”. Introduction to the course. The concept of corporate governance. The difference between corporate governance and corporate management. Genesis of corporate governance (in Russia and abroad). Corporate governance system, principles and factors of its construction

Administrative offenses in the field of business activities

general characteristics rosters and qualifications individual species administrative offenses in the field entrepreneurial activity and activities of self-regulatory organizations, finance, taxes and fees, insurance, securities market, customs

Final state exam “Pedagogy and Psychology”

The state educational standard for the specialty of higher professional education “Pedagogy and Psychology” was approved by order of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation No. 686 in 2005. Graduate qualification: educational psychologist.

© 2013 M.S. Yankelevich

St. Petersburg State University

The article was received by the editor on January 22, 2013

This article discusses various theoretical approaches to the problem of reflecting the psychological characteristics of the author in a work of art and some psychological aspects formation of the image of the author through contact with the work created by him.

Art has enormous formative potential in relation to the value sphere of the individual. The perception of objects of artistic culture actualizes the moral and aesthetic values ​​of the individual. Ideas reflected in figurative artistic form, resonate in individual consciousness. Artistic culture plays the role of a catalyst of personal meaning for the perceiver. This impact, unique in its power, is mediated by the personality of the author.

3. Freud, K. Jung, M. M. Bakhtin, M. S. Kogan,

4. Lombroso, U. Eco and many others. An important theoretical idea, called the “Henneken hypothesis,” is that the works of authors who are close to us in their psychological characteristics are rated higher by us than the works of those authors whose psychological characteristics radically opposite to our own. This idea was considered by E. Hennequin in his work “La critique scientifique” published in France in 1888 (“The experience of constructing scientific criticism"-1892)1. Although the hypothesis was not empirically tested either by the scientist himself or by his followers, it was later developed in theoretical studies by such scientists as N.A. Rubakin (1977), M.E. Burno (1989), V. P. Belyanin (2006) and others.

Another important theoretical aspect of studying the reflection of the author’s personality in a work of artistic culture is associated with the consideration of the work as a method

Yankelevich Marina Sergeevna, graduate student of the Department of General Psychology, psychologist. E-mail: radaveselova&list. ru

1 Genneken E. Experience in constructing scientific criticism. -

translations of meanings. The following scientists worked in this direction: M.M. Bakhtin, A.N. Leontiev, A.A. Leontiev, D.A. Leontiev. Process of perception work of art is a process of mediated communication. In the process of perceiving, for example, a film, the viewer makes recognition visual information for further processing of semantic information and subsequent reaction to it. In essence, we are talking about solving a communicative problem - guessing the creator’s thought and evaluating it. In the process of watching a film, the viewer perceives semantically the information contained in the literary text. We can talk about the implementation of the process of indirect communication, interaction with the author of a work of artistic culture. The perception of a work of art is an active interaction between the communicator and the recipient. G.M. Andreeva characterized the communication process through 3 components: communicative, interactive and perceptual2. First of all, let us focus on the fact that the process of perceiving a work of art can be considered exclusively as indirect communication with the author. Thus, the interactivity characteristic does not apply to it. The remaining two characteristics of the communication process are relevant for the case we are considering. The communicative side involves the exchange of information between participants in communication, the perceptual side includes the perception and knowledge of each other.

It is necessary to distinguish between the author as a real historical figure and the author as an active subject of artistic communication. Since a work of art cannot reflect the personality of the author in its entirety, we are interested in the author as a novelist.

2 Andreeva G.M. Psychology of social cognition. -M.: 1997.

the bearer of the ideological concept of a work of art.

A work of art is a special case of a subjective reflection of objective reality. Thinking is the process of reflecting the objective world in a subjective way. In artistic thinking, the indirect nature of reflection is most obvious. The very value of artistic reflection is associated with the uniqueness of the creator’s personality. The choice of object on which the author focuses his attention is already born from a subjective personal view of the world. Any work of art is a unity of reflected reality and an individual attitude towards it, expressed in figurative form.

In artistic narrative works, the plot is one of the forms of expression of the author's concept of reality, the implementation of personal ideas about the dynamics of life processes. The author's concept of being is expressed in the nature of the combination of an event-related plot series and an intrapersonal plot series. The concept of the author can also be characterized through linguistic units that are the dominant elements of the plot and composition, which, as a rule, occupy “strong” positions in the narrative: epigraph, beginning, end, reference points compositions. In an artistic narrative, the author's position can also be manifested through the so-called author's digressions, such as epigraphs and afterwords.

Art, unlike other types of social consciousness, operates not with concepts, but with images, which in their concrete individuality carry a certain generalization. An image is more visual than a concept. He is characterized by great persuasiveness. The basis of artistry is imagery. It is thanks to their imagery that works of art acquire aesthetic value. With the help of artistic images, the author expresses his assessment of life phenomena. A work of art seeks to establish a certain value system in the minds of the perceiver. The author sets moral, cultural and aesthetic levels, influencing the formation of the personality of those who turn to his works.

Traditionally, science discusses the function of self-expression in creative activity. It should be noted that we can talk not only about the self-expression of the author, but also the self-expression of the perceiver. Not only the personality of the author can find expression in the work. By perceiving a work that resonates with our personality, we can

are able to identify themselves with the author and, referring to him, express their own position. People traditionally illustrate their state or position in relation to various objects of reality, referring to paintings, films, photographs, lines. This happens as a result of indirect communication with the author.

In the 30s of the 20th century, V.V. Vinogradov concentrated his attention on developing the concept of “image of the author” in fiction. Constructing the image of the author based on the perception of a work of art is a bidirectional process built on communication between two parties. On the one hand, the image of the author in a work is created on the basis of the structure of an object created by a specific person, on the other hand, it can only be created by the one who turned to this work, since it is in the field of perception. The image of the author is the central concept of the theory of artistic speech by V.V. Vinogradov, who considered it primarily in linguistic expression. Vinogradov defined the image of the author as follows: “An individual verbal and speech structure that permeates the structure of a work of art and determines the relationship and interaction of its elements. The general principle of the style of a literary work. This verbal and speech structure is reflected in the alternation of different functional speech types, in the change of different forms of speech, which together create a holistic and internally unified image of the author”3.

V.B. Kitaev noted that it would be incorrect to see the possibility of only a linguistic description of the image of the author of a literary text. In his opinion, the human essence of the author is reflected in elements that, being expressed through language, are not linguistic. Vinogradov believed that the image of the author should be sought in the principles and laws of verbal and artistic construction, however, the image of the author, his message is more intuitively guessed than built on the basis of materially represented signs. Vinogradov defined the “image of the author” as the expression of the artist’s personality in his creation. “The image of the author is the center, the focus, in which all the stylistic devices of works of art are crossed and combined, synthesized”4.

The image of the author is a concentrated embodiment of the essence of the work, or the moral attitude of the author to the subject, embodied in the structure of the work of art. The author’s personality finds its manifestation in art

4 Ibid. - P. 215.

natural texts through the way speech is organized, regardless of whether it is used consciously. The image of the author is always a product of co-creation by the one who perceives the work of art and its creator. Since the consciousness of the perceiver is always individual, it is possible for different people to construct significantly different images of the author. The image of the author, in essence, is an individual perception of his personality, reflected in the work.

B.O. Korman presents a systematic approach to the problem of authorship. Corman understands the author as a subject - a “carrier of consciousness”, the expression of which is the entire work or set of works5. The author, in Corman's understanding, is separated from the author as a real person. B.O. Korman introduced the concept of “subjective organization” - a system of subject-object relations through which the author is mediated, the subject is the one whose consciousness is expressed in the text, the object is what the subject’s consciousness is directed towards. The one whose consciousness is expressed in the text is the subject of consciousness, the one on whose behalf speech is conducted is the subject of speech. The formal-subjective organization correlates with the subjects of speech, and the content-subjective organization correlates with the subjects of consciousness. Corman understood the author's consciousness as the unity of the narrator's consciousness and the narrator's consciousness.

According to M.M. Bakhtin, in the process of creating a work, the author constructs an “artistic model of the world”, where the consciousness of the author is always external to the consciousness of the hero6. In the process of perceiving a work, a person, on the one hand, must consider the author’s model of the world, and on the other, evaluate it and compare it with his own. M.M. Bakhtin interprets this interaction as “co-creation of those who understand” - a specific dialogue mediated by a literary text. The scientists who developed his ideas talk about the possibility of treating the world as a whole as a text to be deciphered. This point of view is illuminated in the works of such scientists as N.A. Rubakin, M.N. Kufaev, S.M. Borodin, V.A. Borodin, V.A. Dmitriev, I.N. Tarakanova and others. M.M. Bakhtin identified three components within the concept of “author”. Bakhtin's triad was built as follows: “biographical author - primary author - secondary author.” The primary author is a real historical figure, endowed with a biography and located outside the work.

5 Korman B. O. Studying the text of a work of art. Tutorial. - M.: 1972. - P. 4.

6 Korman B.O. From observations on the terminology of M.M. Bakhtin. - In the book: The problem of the author in Russian literature of the 19th - 20th centuries. - Izhevsk: 1978. - S. 188 - 189.

The secondary author is the subject of creative activity. The author as a subject of aesthetic activity, a creative force, is what M.M. Bakhtin calls the primary author. Its main criterion is the principle of “out-of-location”. The artist should not interfere with the event as a direct participant in it, he should only contemplate. The secondary author, revealing himself in the structure and meaning of a literary text, operates with a word, which is represented by the author’s method of narration. For M.M. Bakhtin, the word is not a neutral object of linguistics, but an ideologically and expressively marked unit. E.Yu. Geim-bukh considered the image of the author as an algorithm for perceiving the subjective sphere of a literary work, that is, the relationship between the speech parts of the characters, the narrator and the narrator.

N.L. Myshkina focused her attention on emphasizing spiritual world author. The formation of the author’s image occurs due to the “flickering” meanings or emanations of a work of art, affecting the recipient’s subconscious. “In a literary text one finds an explicit or implicit expression of the consciousness of a real author (arteator), a mentor and a multitude of subjects (“inductors”) - exponents of ideas with which it confronts or consolidates through

7 Rubakin N.A. Psychology of the reader and the book. - M.: 1977. - P. 59 - 60.

8 Kufaev M.N. The book is in the process of communication. - M.: 1927. - P. 38.

menteavtora arteavtor”9. N.L. Myshkina reveals the problem of authorship through the concept of a pragmamodule, which is revealed in three aspects: 1) the author’s attitude to the world - a worldview position expressed in the author’s position of the picture of the world, acting as a unity of artistic, scientific, social, business and everyday aspects; 2) its relationship to the addressee - address position, considered as a hidden category associated with the analysis of pragmatic categories of the text; 3) his attitude towards language, including linguistic competence - language position10.

Without a doubt, artistic perception is a complex communicative process in which the recipient and the author take part. The author's primary task is always to construct an artistic model that can accurately reflect his ideas about the world. The receiving party attempts to decode and evaluate this message, and then it becomes possible for it to formulate its idea of ​​the author’s personality, his value guidelines, etc.

We have come to an understanding of a work of art as a way of transmitting meanings. In his article “Some problems of the psychology of art,” A. N. Leontyev talks about three functions of art: emotional, informational and the mechanism for transmitting meanings, where he calls the last one the main, specific one11. Developing this idea in her works on the psychology of art, D. A. Leontyeva uses the concept of “disposition”, interpreted as an attitude towards phenomena and objects of reality that have a stable life meaning, which exists in the form of a fixed attitude and manifests itself in the effects of personal-semantic and attitudinal-semantic regulation, not related to the motive of actual activity12. When applied to objects of artistic culture, we can talk about the artistic disposition of the perceiver. An artistic image (quasi-object of art), according to A.N. Leontyev, is a real object that the author describes and endows the image with the characteristics of that object. And to perceive it, it is enough to perceive those signs of this image that can relate to the subject or how broad

9 Myshkina N.L. Dynamic-systemic study of the meaning of the text. - Krasnoyarsk: 1991. - P. 41, 100.

10 Ibid. - P. 41, 100.

11 Leontyev A. N. Selected psychological works. - M.: 1983. - P. 233.

12 A work of art and personality: psychological

skaya structure of interaction // Artistic creativity and psychology / Ed. A.Ya.Zisya,

M.G. Yaroshevsky. - M.: 1991.

class of objects, but are certainly carriers and translators of personal meanings13.

Leontyev identified two main interpretations of a work of artistic culture: 1) A work of art as a reflection of reality, refracted through the personality of the author. In this case, the paradox of artistic perception lies in the fact that only by refusing to perceive the work through the prism of one’s own meanings, it becomes possible to enrich one’s own meanings with those inherent in the work by the author, embodied both in the elements of the artistic text and in the patterns of its structural organization. 2) A work of art as a reflection of the author’s personality, projected onto the content of the work14.

So, we examined one of the aspects of the perception of a work of art - communicative. The second aspect is the perceptual aspect. Social perception - the perception of people by each other - forms the basis of communication and influences its communicative aspect. The result of social perception is the construction of an image of a partner. The term social perception was introduced by J. Bruner in 1947. This term in the narrow sense refers to the social determination of perceptual processes. In broad terms, it is the process of perceiving social objects, in which the perception of a person by a person does not exhaust the very area of ​​social perception. The success of communication and the satisfaction of the parties largely depends on the ability to construct an image of a partner adequate to reality. The perceptual side of communication through the perception of a work of art consists in constructing an image of the author, read from the work itself.

In the scientific literature, analysis of works of art in connection with the individual psychological characteristics of the authors can be found in the works of psychologists - representatives of various schools. Thus, Z. Freud wrote about sublimation as the main mechanism of artistic creativity. According to Freud, the engine of artistic activity is a person’s desire to express his asocial fantasies and drives in a form acceptable to society. Freud believed that creative activity reconciles two divergent principles: the “principle of reality” and the “principle

13 Leontyev A.N. Some problems of the psychology of art // Selected psychological works. - T.P. - M.: 1983. - P. 232.

pleasure”, helping to maintain mental well-being.

According to K. Jung, works of art reflect the extroverted or introverted attitude of the authors15.

C. Lombroso perceived literary creativity from the position of confirming diagnoses and interpreted works primarily as symptomatic. In this case, the literary text replaced the results of passing the waste products methodology16.

The interpretation of genius as something necessarily adjacent to insanity has gained popularity and provoked a number of studies of pathological manifestations of outstanding authors. In the 20s, there was a scientific direction - europathology, created by V.G. Sigalin, which studied the connection between giftedness and pathology. The identification of this relationship was also carried out by such an author as A.V. Shuvalov. His book “The Crazy Facets of Talent” is devoted to this issue. B.M. Teplov considered the characters of literary texts as carriers of the psychological traits of the author of the work17.

L.S. Vygotsky did not share the approach to considering a work of art as a reflection of the author’s personality. For L.S. Vygotsky, a work of art is a set of “aesthetic signs aimed at arousing emotions in people” (Vygotsky takes these words from the work of literary psychology researcher E. Hennequin). “... We do not interpret these signs as a manifestation of the mental organization of the author and his reader”18.

A. Morier proposed a typology of authors of literary works based on their psychological characteristics. A. Morier connects the types of styles of authors of literary texts with the types of personalities of the authors. V.P. Belyanin systematized various classifications literary authors according to the extraversion-introversion criterion19.

M.E. Burno developed creative self-expression therapy, designed for people with deep feelings of their own inferiority, anxiety and depressive disorders. The therapy was based on two

15 Jung K.G. Approach to the unconscious // Archetype and symbol. - M.: 1991.

16 Lombroso Ch. Genius and insanity. -SPb.: 1892. - S. 18 - 21.

17 Teploye B.M. Notes from a psychologist when reading fiction // Teploe B.M. Favorite works: in 2 vols. - M.: 1985.

18 Vygotsky L.S. Psychology of art. - M.: 1968. - P. 17.

19 Belyanin V.P. Fundamentals of psycholinguistic diagnostics

nostics. (Models of the world in literature). - M.: 2000.

ideas. The first idea is that a person suffering from psychological disorders can recognize and accept his own personality. The essence of the second idea is that any creativity is healing in nature, as it releases large quantities positive energy, which will allow the patient to alleviate his conditions through creative self-expression20. This therapy was not aimed at changing the patient’s character, but at his reconciliation with his essence and a more comfortable psychological state. A concept close to the “image of the author” is “author’s modality” - the expression in the work of the author’s attitude to what is displayed. Modality allows us to perceive a work of art as a whole, which is achieved not only by the perception of individual speech units, but also by determining their functions as part of the whole. The author's position is the embodiment of the meaning of the work and connects the entire system of speech structures into a single whole.

Speaking about the reflection of the author’s personality in a work of art, it is necessary to dwell on the concept of linguistic personality, developed in linguistics. Yu.N. Karaulov defines a “linguistic personality” as a set of abilities and characteristics of a person that determine his creation of speech works, which can vary in the degree of structural and linguistic complexity, in the depth and accuracy of the reflection of reality, in the target orientation. This definition combines a person’s abilities and the characteristics of the texts he creates. A linguistic personality can be considered at three levels: verbal-semantic, cognitive, motivational. The linguistic personality of the writer is objectified in his works of art. A work of artistic culture always represents a unity of content and form, reflected in terms such as “content form” and “formulation of content”21. The phenomenon of the worldview reflected in language is called the “linguistic picture of the world”, and in relation to a specific author - the individual linguistic picture of the world. This concept is more universal in comparison with Bakhtin’s concept of “intentional-accentual author’s plan”, which includes “the subject-semantic and expressive horizons of the narrator with his word”22. According to Yu.N. Karaulov, the picture of the world

20 Burno M.E. Creative self-expression therapy. - M.: 1999.

21 Odintsov V.V. Stylistics of the text. M.: 1980. - P. 35.

22 Bakhtin M. M. Questions of literature and aesthetics. Research different years. - M.: 1975. - P.127 - 128.

presented at the cognitive level of the linguistic personality. Concepts, ideas and concepts are units of the cognitive level. Concepts are always marked with values, since they form a picture of the world, which in turn reflects the hierarchy of values23.

Linguistic mentality, a concept important for revealing the problem of authorship, is a method of linguistic representation, including the relationship between the world and its linguistic representation. G.G. Pocheptsov identified two features of linguistic mentality, namely, which parts of the world turn out to be concepts and how these parts “cover” the world. G.G. Pocheptsov believed that the artistic reflection of the world is built on the principle of peaks, that is, those of its components that are most important for the author24.

The work of scientists in the field of art psychology described above allows us to draw several conclusions. Firstly, the personality of the author is reflected in the work of art he created. Secondly, the process of perceiving a work of artistic culture always represents indirect communication with its author. Thirdly, the process of perceiving a work of art, like any other communication, triggers many psychological mechanisms, the most important of which is

which is attribution - a mechanism that allows you to build an image of a partner. The tendency to attribute certain psychological properties to the author of a work can be understood through research into the attribution process as a type of subjective interpretation of the reasons for people’s behavior. This brings us back to the “Hennequin hypothesis,” which consists in the assumption that we value the works of authors who are close to us in their deep psychological characteristics and value guidelines higher than the works of those authors whose psychological characteristics are radically opposite to our own. The hypothesis has never been tested empirically, despite its many theoretical developments by various scientists. Probably, an empirical test of this assumption may be of independent scientific interest and will be carried out by us in future works.

23 Karaulov Yu.N. Russian linguistic personality and the tasks of its study. Published according to the introductory article in the collection. Language and personality. - M.: 1989. - P. 5.

24 Pocheptsov G.G. Linguistic mentality: A way of representing the world // Questions of linguistics. -1990. - No. 6. - P. 110 - 122.

REFLECTION OF THE PERSON OF THE AUTHOR IN A WORK OF ART

© 2013 M.S. Yankelevich" St. Petersburg State University

In this article different theoretical approaches to the problem of reflection of the author's psychological characteristics in art work are examined. Some psychological aspects of forming author's image through contact with his artwork are examined.

Key words: “author's image”, “author's modality”, “lingual personality”, “translation of meanings”, “artistic model of the world”.

Yankelevich Marina Sergeevna, Post-graduate student, Chair of General Psychology. E-mail: radaveselova@list. ru

Moscow 2008

The problem of the author has become, as many modern researchers recognize, central in literary criticism of the second half of the twentieth century. This is also connected with the development of literature itself, which (especially starting from the era of romanticism) increasingly emphasizes the personal, individual nature of creativity, and many different forms of “behavior” of the author in a work appear. This is also connected with the development of literary science, which strives to consider a literary work both as a special world, the result of the creative activity of the creator who created it, and as a certain statement, a dialogue between the author and the reader. Depending on what the scientist’s attention is focused on, they talk about image of the author in a literary work, about author's voice in relation to characters' voices. The terminology associated with the whole range of problems arising around the author has not yet become orderly and generally accepted. Therefore, first of all, we need to define the basic concepts, and then see how in practice, i.e. in a specific analysis (in each specific case), these terms “work”.

Of course, the author’s problem did not arise in the twentieth century, but much earlier. A modern scientist cites the statements of many writers of the past who amazingly turn out to be consonant - despite the complete dissimilarity of the same authors in many other respects. These are the sayings:

N.M. Karamzin: “The Creator is always depicted in creation and often against his will.”

M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin: “Every work of fiction, no worse than any scientific treatise, betrays its author with all his inner world.”

F.M. Dostoevsky: “In mirror reflection one cannot see how the mirror looks at the object, or, better to say, one can see that it does not look at all, but reflects passively, mechanically. A true artist cannot do this: whether in a painting, a story, or a piece of music, there will certainly be something different; he will reflect involuntarily, even against his will, he will express himself with all his views, with his character, with the degree of his development.”

The most detailed reflection on the author was left by L.N. Tolstoy. In the “Preface to the Works of Guy de Maupassant” he argues as follows: “People who are little sensitive to art often think that a work of art is one whole because the same persons act in it, because everything is built on the same premise.” or describes the life of one person. It's not fair. This is only how it seems to a superficial observer: the cement that binds every work of art into one whole and therefore produces the illusion of a reflection of life is not the unity of persons and positions, but the unity of the original moral attitude of the author to the subject. ...In essence, when we read or contemplate a work of art by a new author, the main question that arises in our soul is always this: “Well, what kind of person are you? And how are you different from all the people I know, and what can you tell me new about how we should look at our lives?” Whatever the artist depicts: saints, robbers, kings, lackeys - we look for and see only the soul of the artist himself" 1 .

Here we need to focus on two points that are especially important for us now. First: the unity and integrity of a literary work are directly related to the figure (image) of the author, moreover: he, the author, is the main guarantee of this unity (even, as we see, according to Tolstoy, to a greater extent than the heroes of the work and even then , what happens to them, i.e. the events that make up the plot of the work). And second. We have the right to ask ourselves the question: but to what extent is it legitimate to tell us about the author as a person (“come on, what kind of person are you?..”)? Looking ahead, let's say: probably to the same extent to which we sometimes talk about the human properties of the hero - which, of course, is assumed (since we are dealing with a literary work as a special kind of reality), and at the same time we perfectly “remember” that this reality is of a special kind and that a person in life is not at all the same as artistic image, even if it’s the same person. It is in this sense that we can only imagine the author as a person, and more precisely, we are dealing here with the image of the author, the image created by the entire work as a whole and arising in the mind of the reader as a result of a “response” creative act - reading.

“The word “author” is used in literary studies in several meanings. First of all, it means a writer - a real person. In other cases, it denotes a certain concept, a certain view of reality, the expression of which is the entire work. Finally, this word is used to designate certain phenomena characteristic of certain genres and genders” 2.

Noted B.O. Corman's triple use of the term can be supplemented and commented on. Most scientists distinguish between the author in the first meaning (also called the “real” or “biographical” author) and the author in the second meaning. This, to use another terminology, is the author as an aesthetic category, or the image of the author. Sometimes they talk here about the “voice” of the author, considering such a definition more legitimate and definite than the “image of the author.” For now, let us accept all these terms as synonyms in order to definitely and confidently distinguish the real, biographical author from that artistic reality, which is revealed to us in the work. As for the term “author” in the third meaning, the scientist here means that sometimes the narrator is called the author, the storyteller (in epic works) or the lyrical hero (in lyric poetry): this should be considered incorrect, and sometimes even completely incorrect.

To see this, you need to think about how the work is organized from a narrative point of view. Remembering that the author’s “presence” is not concentrated at one point in the work (the hero closest to the author, serving as a “mouthpiece” of his ideas, a kind of alter ego of the author; direct author’s assessments of the depicted, etc.), but is manifested in at all levels of artistic structure (from the plot to the smallest “cells” - tropes), - with this in mind, let’s look at how the author’s principle (the author) manifests itself in the subjective organization of the work, i.e. in the way it is constructed from a narrative perspective. (It is clear that in this way we will be talking primarily about epic works. The forms of manifestation of the author in lyric poetry and drama will be discussed later.)

There are third-person narration (Erform, or, what is the same, Er-Erzählung) and 1st-person narration (Icherzählung). The one who narrates in the 3rd person, does not name himself (is not personified), we will agree to denote by the term narrator. The person who tells the story in the first person is called the narrator. (This use of terms has not yet become universal, but, perhaps, occurs among most researchers.) Let us consider these types in more detail.

Erform (“erform”), or “objective” narrative, includes three varieties, depending on how noticeable the “presence” of the author or characters is in them.

1. 
   The author's own narration.

“The year after the birth of Christ 1918 was a great and terrible year, the second from the beginning of the revolution. It was full of sun in summer and snow in winter, and two stars stood especially high in the sky: the shepherd star - evening Venus and red, trembling Mars.

We immediately understand both the accuracy and some convention of the definition of “objective” narrative. On the one hand, the narrator does not name himself (“I”), he seems to be dissolved in the text and is not manifested as a person (not personified). This property of epic works is the objectivity of what is depicted, when, according to Aristotle, “the work, as it were, sings itself.” On the other hand, already in the very structure of phrases, inversion emphasizes and intonationally highlights evaluative words: “great”, “terrible”. In the context of the entire novel, it becomes clear that the mention of the Nativity of Christ, and of the “shepherd’s” Venus (the star that led the shepherds to the birthplace of Christ), and of the sky (with all the possible associations that this motif entails, for example, with “War”) and the world” by L. Tolstoy) – all this is connected with the author’s assessment of the events depicted in the novel, with the author’s concept of the world. And we understand the conventionality of the definition of “objective” narrative: it was unconditional for Aristotle, but even for Hegel and Belinsky, although they built the system literary families no longer in antiquity, like Aristotle, but in the 19th century, but based on the material precisely ancient art. Meanwhile, the experience of the novel (namely, the novel is understood as an epic of modern and contemporary times) suggests that the author’s subjectivity, the personal principle, also manifest themselves in epic works.

So, in the narrator’s speech we clearly hear the author’s voice, the author’s assessment of what is being depicted. Why don’t we have the right to identify the narrator with the author? This would be incorrect. The fact is that the narrator is the most important (in epic works), but not the only form of authorial consciousness. The author manifests himself not only in the narration, but also in many other aspects of the work: in the plot and composition, in the organization of time and space, in many other things, right down to the choice of means of small imagery... Although, first of all, of course, in the narration itself. The narrator owns all those sections of the text that cannot be attributed to any of the characters.

But it is important to distinguish between the subject of speech (the speaker) and the subject of consciousness (the one whose consciousness is expressed). It's not always the same thing. We can see in the narrative a certain “diffusion” of the voices of the author and the characters.

1. 
   Not the author's own narration.

“Alexey, Elena, Talberg, and Anyuta, who grew up in Turbina’s house, and Nikolka, stunned by death, with a cowlick hanging over his right eyebrow, stood at the feet of the old brown Saint Nicholas. Nikolka’s blue eyes, set on the sides of a long bird’s nose, looked confused, murdered. From time to time he led them to the iconostasis, to the arch of the altar, drowning in twilight, where the sad and mysterious old god ascended and blinked. Why such an insult? Injustice? Why was it necessary to take away my mother when everyone moved in, when relief came?

God, flying away into the black, cracked sky, did not give an answer, and Nikolka himself did not yet know that everything that happens is always as it should be, and only for the better.

They performed the funeral service, went out onto the echoing slabs of the porch and escorted the mother through the entire huge city to the cemetery, where the father had long been lying under a black marble cross. And they buried mom. Eh... eh...”

Here, in the scene when the Turbins bury their mother, the voice of the author and the voice of the hero are combined - despite the fact (it is worth emphasizing this again) that formally this entire fragment of text belongs to the narrator. “A cowlick hanging over his right eyebrow,” “blue heads planted on the sides of a long bird’s nose...” - this is how the hero himself cannot see himself: this is the author’s view of him. And at the same time, “a sad and mysterious old god” is clearly the perception of seventeen-year-old Nikolka, as well as the words: “Why such an insult? Injustice? Why was it necessary to take away my mother...”, etc. This is how the voice of the author and the voice of the hero are combined in the narrator’s speech, up to the case when this combination occurs within one sentence: “The god flying into the black, cracked sky did not give an answer...” (zone of the hero’s voice) - “... and Nikolka himself didn’t know yet...” (author’s voice zone).

This type of narration is called non-authorial. We can say that here two subjects of consciousness are combined (the author and the hero) - despite the fact that there is only one subject of speech: the narrator.

Now M.M.’s position should become clear. Bakhtin about “author’s excess”, expressed by him in his 1919 work “Author and Hero in aesthetic activity" Bakhtin separates, as we would now say, the biographical, real author and the author as an aesthetic category, an author dissolved in the text, and writes: “The author must be on the border of the world he creates as an active creator of it... The author is necessary and authoritative for the reader , who treats him not as a person, not as another person, not as a hero... but as a principle which must be followed (only a biographical consideration of the author turns him into... a person defined in existence who can be contemplated). Inside the work for the reader, the author is a set of creative principles that must be implemented (i.e. in the mind of the reader who follows the author in the reading process - E.O.)... His individuation as a person (i.e. the idea of ​​the author as a person, a real person - E.O.) is already a secondary creative act of the reader, critic, historian, independent of the author as the active principle of vision... The author knows and sees more not only in the direction in which the hero looks and sees, but in another, fundamentally inaccessible to the hero himself.. The author not only knows and sees everything that each hero individually and all the heroes together knows and sees, but also more than them, and he sees and knows something that is fundamentally inaccessible to them, and in this is always certain and stable excess the author’s vision and knowledge in relation to each character and all the moments of completion of the whole... work are found” 3.

In other words, the hero is limited in his horizons 4 by a special position in time and space, character traits, age and many other circumstances. This is how he differs from the author, who is, in principle, omniscient and omnipresent, although the degree of his “manifestation” in the text of the work may be different, including in the organization of the work from the point of view of narrative. The author manifests himself in every element of a work of art, and at the same time he cannot be identified with any of the characters or with any one side of the work.

Thus, it becomes clear that the narrator is only one of the forms of the author’s consciousness, and it is impossible to completely identify him with the author.

1. 
   Improperly direct speech.

“Anfisa showed neither surprise nor sympathy. She didn't like these boyish antics of her husband. They are waiting for him at home, they are dying, they can’t find a place for themselves, but he rode and rode, but Sinelga came to his mind - and he galloped off. It’s as if this same Sinelga will fall through the ground if you leave there a day later.” (F. Abramov. Crossroads)

“Yesterday I drank a lot. Not exactly “in shreds”, but firmly. Yesterday, the day before yesterday and the third day. All because of that bastard Banin and his dearest sister. Well, they split you into your labor rubles! ...After demobilization, I moved with a friend to Novorossiysk. A year later he was taken away. Some bastard stole spare parts from the garage" (V. Aksenov. Halfway to the Moon) /

As you can see, with all the differences between the characters here, F. Abramov and V. Aksenov have a similar principle in the relationship between the voices of the author and the character. In the first case, it seems that only the first two sentences can be “attributed” to the author. Then his point of view is deliberately combined with Anfisa's point of view (or "disappears" in order to give close-up the heroine herself). In the second example, it is generally impossible to isolate the author’s voice: the entire narrative is colored by the hero’s voice, his speech characteristics. The case is especially difficult and interesting, because... the intelligentsia vernacular characteristic of the character is not alien to the author, as anyone who reads Aksenov’s entire story can be convinced of. In general, such a desire to merge the voices of the author and the hero, as a rule, occurs when they are close and speaks of the desire of writers to position themselves not as a detached judge, but as a “son and brother” of their heroes. M. Zoshchenko called himself the “son and brother” of his characters in “Sentimental Stories”; “Your son and brother” was the title of V. Shukshin’s story, and although these words belong to the hero of the story, in many ways Shukshin’s author’s position is generally characterized by the narrator’s desire to get as close as possible to the characters. In studies of linguistic stylistics of the second half of the twentieth century. this tendency (going back to Chekhov) is noted as characteristic of Russian prose of the 1960s - 1970s. The confessions of the writers themselves are consistent with this. “...One of my favorite techniques - it has even become, perhaps, repeated too often - is the author’s voice, which seems to be woven into the hero’s internal monologue,” admitted Yu. Trifonov. Even earlier, V. Belov thought about similar phenomena: “...I think that there is some thin, elusively shaky and rightful line of contact between the author’s language and the language of the depicted character. A deep, very specific separation of these two categories is just as unpleasant as their complete merging” 5.

Non-authorial narration and non-authorial direct speech are two varieties of Erform that are close to each other. If it is sometimes difficult to distinguish them sharply (and researchers themselves admit this difficulty), then we can distinguish not three, but two varieties of Erform and talk about what predominates in the text: “the author’s plan” or “the character’s plan” ( according to the terminology of N.A. Kozhevnikova), that is, in the division we have adopted, the author’s own narrative or two other varieties of Erform. But it is necessary to distinguish at least these two types of authorial activity, especially since, as we see, this problem worries the writers themselves.

Icherzä hlung – first person narration– no less common in the literature. And here one can observe no less expressive possibilities for the writer. Let's consider this form - Icherzählung (according to the terminology accepted in world literary studies; in Russian sound - “icherzählung”).

“What a pleasure it is for a third-person narrator to switch to the first! It’s like having small and inconvenient thimble glasses and suddenly giving up, thinking and drinking cold raw water straight from the tap” (O. Mandelstam. Egyptian Brand. L., 1928, p. 67).

To the researcher... this succinct and powerful remark says a lot. Firstly, it strongly recalls the special essence of verbal art (compared to other types of speech activity)... Secondly, it testifies to the depth of aesthetic awareness choice one or another leading form of narration in relation to the task that the writer has set for himself. Thirdly, it indicates the necessity (or possibility) and artistic fruitfulness transition from one narrative form to another. And, finally, fourthly, it contains recognition of a certain kind of inconvenience, which is fraught with any deviation from the uncorrectable explication of the author’s “I” and which, nevertheless, fiction for some reason neglects” 6 .

“Uncorrected explication of the author’s “I”” in the terminology of a modern linguist is a free, unrestrained direct author’s word, which O. Mandelstam probably had in mind in this particular case - in the book “Egyptian Brand”. But first-person narration does not necessarily presuppose precisely and only such a word. And here at least three varieties can be distinguished. Let us agree to call the one who is the bearer of such a narrative storyteller(unlike the narrator in Erform). True, in the specialized literature there is no unity regarding the terminology associated with the narrator, and one can find word usage that is the opposite of what we proposed. But here it is important not to bring all researchers to a mandatory consensus, but to agree on terms. In the end, it is not a matter of terms, but of the essence of the problem.

So, three important types of first-person narration - Icherzählung , distinguished depending on who the narrator is: author-narrator; a narrator who is not a hero; hero-storyteller.

1. Author-narrator. Probably, it was precisely this form of narration that O. Mandelstam had in mind: it gave him, a poet writing prose, the most convenient and familiar, and, moreover, of course, in accordance with the specific artistic assignment the opportunity to speak as openly and directly as possible in the first person. (Although one should not exaggerate the autobiographical nature of such a narrative: even in lyric poetry, with its maximum subjectivity compared to drama and epic, the lyrical “I” is not only not identical to the biographical author, but is not the only opportunity for poetic self-expression.) The brightest and a well-known example of such a narrative is “Eugene Onegin”: the figure of the author-narrator organizes the entire novel, which is structured as a conversation between the author and the reader, a story about how the novel is written (was written), which thanks to this seems to be created before the eyes of the reader. The author here also organizes relationships with the characters. Moreover, we understand the complexity of these relationships with each of the characters largely thanks to the author’s peculiar speech “behavior.” The author's word is capable of absorbing the voices of the characters (in this case, the words hero And character are used as synonyms). With each of them, the author enters into a relationship of either dialogue, polemic, or complete sympathy and complicity. (Let’s not forget that Onegin is the author’s “good... friend”; at a certain time they became friends, they were going to go on a trip together, i.e. the author-narrator takes some part in the plot. But we must also remember about the conventions of such a game, for example: “Tatiana’s letter is before me, / I cherish it sacredly.” On the other hand, one should not identify the author as a literary image and with the real - biographical - author, no matter how tempting it may be (a hint of a southern exile and some other autobiographical features).

Bakhtin apparently first spoke about this verbal behavior of the author, about the dialogical relationship between the author and the characters, in the articles “The Word in the Novel” and “From the Prehistory of the Novel Word.” Here he showed that the image of a speaking person, his words, is a characteristic feature of the novel as a genre and that heteroglossia, the “artistic image of language” 7 , even the many languages ​​of the characters and the author’s dialogical relationship with them are actually the subject of the image in the novel.

1. 
   Hero-storyteller. This is the one who takes part in events and narrates them; thus, the apparently “absent” author in the narrative creates the illusion of authenticity of everything that happens. It is no coincidence that the figure of the hero-storyteller appears especially often in Russian prose starting from the second half of the 30s of the 19th century: this may also be explained by the increased attention of writers to the inner world of a person (the confession of the hero, his story about himself). And at the same time, already at the end of the 30s, when realistic prose, the hero - an eyewitness and participant in the events - was called upon to postulate the “plausibility” of what was depicted. In this case, in any case, the reader finds himself very close to the hero, sees him as if in close-up, without an intermediary in the person of the omniscient author. This is perhaps the largest group of works written in the Icherzählung manner (if anyone wanted to make such a calculation). And this category includes works where the relationship between the author and the narrator can be very different: the closeness of the author and the narrator (as, for example, in “Notes of a Hunter” by Turgenev); complete “independence” of the narrator (one or more) from the author (as in “A Hero of Our Time,” where the author himself only has a preface, which, strictly speaking, is not included in the text of the novel: it did not exist in the first edition). In this series we can call “ Captain's daughter"Pushkin, many other works. According to V.V. Vinogradov, “the narrator is the speech creation of the writer, and the image of the narrator (who pretends to be the “author”) is a form of literary “acting” of the writer” 8. It is no coincidence that the forms of narration in particular and the problem of the author in general are of interest not only to literary scholars, but also to linguists, such as V.V. Vinogradov and many others.

The concept of point of view remains to be clarified, but now it is important to pay attention to two more points: the “absence” of the author in the work and the fact that all of it constructed as a story by a hero who is extremely distant from the author. In this sense, the absent author’s word, distinguished by its literary nature, appears as an invisible (but assumed) opposite pole in relation to the hero’s word – the characteristic word. One of the striking examples of a fairy tale work can be called Dostoevsky’s novel “Poor People”, built in the form of letters from a poor official Makar Devushkin and his beloved Varenka. Later, about this first novel, which brought him literary fame, but also caused reproaches from critics, the writer remarked: “They don’t understand how you can write in such a style. They are accustomed to seeing the writer’s face in everything; I didn't show mine. And they have no idea that Devushkin is speaking, not me, and that Devushkin cannot say otherwise.” As we see, this half-joking admission should convince us that the choice of the form of narration occurs consciously, as a special artistic task. In a certain sense, the tale is the opposite of the first form of Icherzählung we named, in which the author-storyteller reigns with full rights and about which O. Mandelstam wrote. The author, it is worth emphasizing this again, works in the tale with someone else’s word - the word of the hero, voluntarily renouncing his traditional “privilege” of an omniscient author. In this sense, V.V. was right. Vinogradov, who wrote: “A tale is an artistic construction in a square...” 10.

A narrator who cannot be called a hero can also speak on behalf of “I”: he does not take part in events, but only narrates about them. Narrator who is not a hero, appears, however, as part of the artistic world: he, too, like the characters, is the subject of the image. As a rule, he is endowed with a name, a biography, and most importantly, his story characterizes not only the characters and events about which he narrates, but also himself. Such, for example, is Rudy Panko in Gogol’s “Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka” - a figure no less colorful than the characters participating in the action. And his very manner of narration can perfectly clarify the above-mentioned position about the event of narration: for the reader this is truly an aesthetic experience, perhaps no less powerful than the events themselves that he is talking about and that happen to the heroes. There is no doubt that for the author, creating the image of Rudy Panka was a special artistic task. (From Mandelstam’s statement above, it is clear that in general the choice of a narrative form is never accidental; another thing is that it is not always possible to obtain the author’s interpretation of a particular case, but it is necessary to think about it every time.) This is how Gogol’s tale sounds:

“Yes, that was it, and I forgot the most important thing: when you, gentlemen, come to me, then take the straight path along the main road to Dikanka. I put it on the first page on purpose so that they could get to our farm faster. I think you’ve heard enough about Dikanka. And that’s to say that the house there is cleaner than some pasichnikov’s kuren. And there’s nothing to say about the garden: you probably won’t find anything like this in your St. Petersburg. Having arrived in Dikanka, just ask the first boy you come across, herding geese in a soiled shirt: “Where does the beekeeper Rudy Panko live?” - “And there!” - he will say, pointing his finger and, if you want, he will take you to the very farm. However, I ask you not to put your hands back too much and, as they say, to feint, because the roads through our farmsteads are not as smooth as in front of your mansions.”
The figure of the narrator provides the opportunity for a complex author’s “game”, and not only in fairy tale narration, for example, in M. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”, where the author plays with the “faces” of the narrator: he emphasizes his omniscience, possession full knowledge about the heroes and everything that happened in Moscow (“Follow me, reader, and only me!”), then he puts on a mask of ignorance, bringing him closer to any of the passing characters (they say, we didn’t see this, and what we didn’t see , we don’t know that). As he wrote in the 1920s. V.V. Vinogradov: “In a literary masquerade, a writer can freely change stylistic masks throughout one work of art” 11.
As a result, we present the definition of skaz given by modern scientists and taking into account, it seems, all the most important observations about skaz made by predecessors: “... a skaz is a two-voice narrative that correlates the author and the narrator, stylized as an orally pronounced, theatrically improvised monologue of a person, implying a sympathetic audience, directly related to the democratic environment or oriented towards this environment” 12.

So, we can say that in a literary work, no matter how it is constructed from the point of view of narration, we always find the author’s “presence”, but it is found to a greater or lesser extent and in different forms: in a 3rd person narration, the narrator is closest to the author, in the tale the narrator is the most distant from him. “The narrator in a tale is not only the subject of speech, but also the object of speech. In general, we can say that the stronger the narrator’s personality is revealed in the text, the more he is not only the subject of speech, but also its object” 13. (And vice versa: the more inconspicuous the narrator’s speech, the less specific it is, the closer the narrator is to the author.)

To better distinguish between the subject of speech (the speaker) and the object of speech (what is being depicted), it is useful to distinguish between the concepts subject of speech And subject of consciousness. Moreover, not only the appearance of the hero, an event (action), etc. can be depicted, but also - which is especially important for the genre of the novel and in general for all narrative prose - the speech and consciousness of the hero. Moreover, the hero’s speech can be depicted not only as direct, but also in refraction - in the speech of the narrator (be it the author, narrator or storyteller), and therefore in his assessment. So, the subject of speech is the speaker himself. The subject of consciousness is the one whose consciousness is expressed (transmitted) in the speech of the subject. It's not always the same thing.

1. 
   The subject of speech and the subject of consciousness coincide. This includes all cases of the author’s direct word (the author’s narration itself). We also include here fairly simple cases when there are two subjects of speech and two subjects of consciousness in the text.

I will not tolerate the corrupter

Fire and sighs and praises

He tempted the young heart;

So that the despicable, poisonous worm

Sharpened a lily stalk;

To the two-morning flower

Withered still half-open.”

All this meant, friends:

I'm shooting with a friend.

1. 
   A more complicated case. There is one subject of speech, but two consciousnesses are expressed (the consciousness of two): in this example, the author and the hero.

And his song was clear,

Like the thoughts of a simple-minded maiden,

Like a baby's dream, like the moon

In the deserts of the serene sky,

Goddess of secrets and tender sighs.

He sang separation and sadness,

AND something, And foggy distance,

And romantic roses...
Please note that here, in the last three verses, the author is clearly ironic about Lensky’s poetry: the words in italics are thus separated from the author as alien, and in them one can also see an allusion to two literary sources. (An allusion is a hidden hint at an implied, but not directly indicated literary source. The reader must guess which one.) “Fog in the distance” is one of the common romantic formulas, but it is possible that Pushkin also had in mind the article by V.K. Kuchelbecker 1824 “On the direction of our poetry, especially lyrical, in the last decade.” In it, the author complained that the romantic elegy had replaced the heroic ode, and wrote: “The pictures are the same everywhere: moon, which - of course - sad And pale, rocks and oak groves where they have never been, a forest behind which a hundred times one imagines the setting sun, the evening dawn, occasionally long shadows and ghosts, something invisible, something unknown, vulgar allegories, pale, tasteless personifications... in features - fog: fogs over the waters, fogs over the forest, fogs over the fields, fog in the writer’s head.” Another word highlighted by Pushkin - “something” - indicates the abstractness of romantic images, and perhaps even “Woe from Wit”, in which Ippolit Markelych Udushev produces a “scientific treatise” called “A Look and Something” - meaningless , empty essay.

Everything that has been said should lead us to an understanding of the complex, polemical relationship between the author and Lensky; In particular, this polemic relates not so much to the personality of the youngest poet, unconditionally beloved by the author, but to romanticism, to which the author himself had recently “paid tribute,” but with which he has now decisively parted ways.

Another more difficult question is: who owns Lensky’s poems? Formally – to the author (they are given in the author’s speech). Essentially, as M.M. writes. Bakhtin in the article “From the Prehistory of the Novel Word”, “poetic images... depicting Lensky’s “song” do not at all have a direct poetic meaning here. They cannot be understood as direct poetic images of Pushkin himself (although the formal characterization is given by the author). Here Lensky’s “song” characterizes itself, in its own language, in its own poetic manner. Pushkin’s direct characterization of Lensky’s “song” - it is in the novel - sounds completely different:

So he wrote dark And sluggishly...

In the above four lines, the song of Lensky himself sounds, his voice, his poetic style, but they are permeated here with the parodic and ironic accents of the author; Therefore, they are not isolated from the author’s speech either compositionally or grammatically. Before us really image Lensky's songs, but not poetic in the narrow sense, but typically novelistic image: this is an image of a foreign language, in this case an image of a foreign poetic style... The poetic metaphors of these lines (“like a baby’s dream, like the moon”, etc.) are not here at all primary means Images(what they would be like in a direct, serious song by Lensky himself); they themselves become here subject of the image, namely, a parody-stylizing image. This novel image someone else's style... in the system of direct author's speech... taken in intonation quotes, namely, parodic and ironic" 14 .

The situation is more complicated with another example from Eugene Onegin, which is also given by Bakhtin (and after him by many modern authors):

Do not despise people in your heart;

Whoever felt it is worried

Ghost of irrevocable days:

There's no charm for that

That serpent of memories

He is gnawing at remorse.

One might think that we have before us the direct poetic maxim of the author himself. But already the following lines:

All this often gives

Great charm to the conversation, -

(the conventional author with Onegin) cast a slight objective shadow on this maxim (i.e. we can and even should think that Onegin’s consciousness is depicted here - serves as an object - E.O.). Although it is included in the author’s speech, it is built in the area of ​​action of Onegin’s voice, in Onegin’s style. Before us again is a novelistic image of someone else's style. But it was built a little differently. All the images in this passage are the subject of the image: they are depicted as Onegin’s style, as Onegin’s worldview. In this respect, they are similar to the images of Lensky's song. But, unlike this latter, the images of the given maxim, being the subject of the image, themselves depict, or rather, express the author’s thought, for the author largely agrees with it, although he sees the limitations and incompleteness of the Onegin-Byronic worldview and style. Thus, the author... is much closer to Onegin’s “language” than to Lensky’s “language”... he not only depicts this “language”, but to a certain extent he himself speaks this “language”. The hero is in the zone of possible conversation with him, in the zone dialogical contact. The author sees the limitations and incompleteness of the still fashionable Onegin language-worldview, sees his funny, isolated and artificial face (“Muscovite in Harold’s cloak”, “A complete vocabulary of fashionable words”, “Isn’t he a parody?”), but at the same time whole line he can express significant thoughts and observations only with the help of this “language”... the author really talking with Onegin..." 15.

3. The subjects of speech are different, but one consciousness is expressed. Thus, in Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor,” Pravdin, Starodum, and Sofia essentially express the author’s consciousness. It is already difficult to find such examples in literature since the era of romanticism (and this example is taken from the lecture of N.D. Tamarchenko). Speeches of the characters in the story by N.M. Karamzin " Poor Lisa” also often reflect one thing – the author’s – consciousness.

The subject of speech (the speaker, the narrator) manifests himself both in the position he occupies in space and time, and in the way he names what is depicted. Various researchers distinguish, for example, spatial, temporal and ideological-emotional points of view (B. O. Korman); spatio-temporal, evaluative, phraseological and psychological (B.A. Uspensky). Here is B. Corman’s definition: “a point of view is a single (one-time, point-by-point) relationship of a subject to an object.” Simply put, the narrator (author) looks at what is depicted, taking a certain position in time and space and evaluating the subject of the image. Actually, an assessment of the world and man is the most important thing that the reader is looking for in a work. This is the same “original moral attitude to the subject” of the author that Tolstoy thought about. Therefore, summarizing the various teachings about points of view, let us first name the possible relationships in spatiotemporally. According to B.A. Uspensky, this is 1) the case when the spatial position of the narrator and the character coincide. In some cases, “the narrator is there, i.e. at the same point in space where a certain character is located - he is, as it were, “attached” to him (for a while or throughout the entire narrative). ...But in other cases the author should behind the character, but does not transform into him... Sometimes the place of the narrator can be determined only relatively” 2). The spatial position of the author may not coincide with the position of the character. Here the following are possible: sequential review - changing points of view; another case is “the author’s point of view is completely independent and independent in its movement; "moving position"; and finally, “the overall (overarching) point of view: the bird’s eye view.” You can also characterize the narrator’s position in time. “At the same time, the actual countdown of time (the chronology of events) can be carried out by the author from the position of some character or from his own position.” At the same time, the narrator can change his position, combine different time plans: he can, as it were, look from the future, run ahead (unlike the hero), he can remain in the hero’s time, or he can “look into the past” 16.

Phraseological point of view. Here the question of name: in the way this or that person is named, the namer himself is revealed most of all, because “the acceptance of this or that point of view... is directly determined by the attitude towards the person.” B.A. Ouspensky gives examples of how the Parisian newspapers referred to Napoleon Bonaparte as he approached Paris during his “Hundred Days.” The first message read: " Corsican monster landed in Juan Bay." The second news reported: " Ogre goes to Grasse." Third message: " Usurper entered Grenoble." Fourth: " Bonaparte occupied Lyon." Fifth: " Napoleon approaching Fontainebleau." And finally, sixth: “ His Imperial Majesty expected today in his faithful Paris."

And the way the hero is called also reveals his assessment by the author or other characters. “...very often in fiction the same person is called by different names (or is generally called in various ways), and often these different names collide in one phrase or directly close in the text.

Here are some examples:
"Despite the enormous wealth Count Bezukhov, since Pierre received it and received it, he felt much less rich than when he received his 10 thousand from the late count "...
“At the end of the meeting, the great master, with hostility and irony, made Bezukhov a remark about his ardor and that it was not only the love of virtue, but also the passion for struggle that guided him in the dispute. Pierre didn’t answer him..."
It is quite obvious that in all these cases the test uses several points of view, i.e. the author uses different positions when referring to the same person. in particular, the author can use the positions of certain characters (of the same work) who are in different relationships to the named person.

If we know what other characters are called this person(and this is not difficult to establish by analyzing the corresponding dialogues in the work), then it becomes possible to formally determine whose point of view is used by the author at one point or another in the narrative” 17.

In relation to lyric poetry, they talk about various forms of manifestation in it of the author's, subjective, personal principle, which reaches its utmost concentration in lyric poetry (compared to epic and drama, which are traditionally considered - and rightfully so - to be more “objective” types of literature). The term “lyrical hero” remains the central and most frequently used term, although it has its own certain boundaries and is not the only form of manifestation of authorial activity in lyric poetry. Various researchers talk about the author-narrator, the author himself, the lyrical hero and the hero of role-playing lyrics (B.O. Korman), about the lyrical “I” and in general about the “lyrical subject” (S.N. Broitman). A unified and final classification of terms that would fully cover the entire variety of lyrical forms and suit all researchers without exception does not yet exist. And in lyric poetry, “the author and the hero are not absolute values, but two “limits” towards which other subjective forms gravitate and between which are located: narrator(closer to the author’s plan, but not entirely coinciding with it) and narrator(endowed with authorial features, but gravitating towards the “heroic” plan)” 18.

In the variety of lyrics, autopsychological, descriptive, narrative, and role principles are distinguished. It is clear that in descriptive lyricism (this is predominantly landscape lyricism) and narrative we are more likely dealing with a narrator who is not subjectively expressed and is to a large extent close to the author himself, who again should not be identified with a biographical poet, but who, undoubtedly, connected with him in the same way as the narrator is connected with the author himself in an epic work. This is a connection, not an identity. This is a relationship of inseparability - non-fusion (as S.N. Broitman writes), or, in other words, the narrator and the author are related as part and whole, as a creation and a creator, who always manifests himself in each of his creations, even in the smallest particle of it, but is never equal (not equal in size) to this particle, or even to the whole creation.

So, in narrative and landscape lyrics, the one through whose eyes the landscape or event is seen may not be named or personified. Such a non-personalized narrator is one of the forms of authorial consciousness in lyric poetry. Here, in the words of S. Broitman, “the author himself dissolves in his creation, like God in creation” 19.

The situation is more complicated with role-playing (also called character) lyrics. Here the entire poem is written from the point of view of a character (“other” in relation to the author). The relationship between the author and the character can be different. In Nekrasov’s poem “The Moral Man,” the satirical character is not only extremely far from the author, but also serves as the subject of exposure and satirical negation. And, say, the Assyrian king Assargadon “comes to life” and talks about himself in the poem “Assargadon” by V. Bryusov. But it is clear that it would not occur to us to identify the poet himself with the hero of the role-playing lyrics. It is also clear, however, that this poem is an important characteristic artistic world of the poet. The relationship between role-playing and auto-psychological lyrics in the poetry of M. Tsvetaeva and A. Akhmatova is even more peculiar. Tsvetaeva, along with a lyrical heroine, is recognizable and has (like Akhmatova) even the features of a self-portrait ( new feature in poetry, characteristic of the beginning of the twentieth century), there is, for example, the image of a street singer (the poem “The rain is knocking on my window...” from the cycle “Poems to Sonechka”). In Akhmatova’s poems of the early 1910s, other heroes appear simultaneously with the lyrical heroine: Candrillona - Cinderella (“And to meet you on the steps...”), a rope dancer (“He left me on the new moon...”), who has no name. , but a personified hero (“I came up. I didn’t show my excitement...” 20). And this despite the fact that it was Akhmatova’s lyrical heroine who was “recognizable” (largely due to the fact that many contemporary artists created her portraits, graphic, painting and sculptural) - in such a poem, for example:

There is a row of small rosary on the neck,

I hide my hands in a wide muff,

Eyes look carefully

And they never cry again.
And the face seems paler

From lilac silk,

Almost reaches the eyebrows

My uncurled bangs.

This gait is slow,

It's like a raft under your feet,

Not squares of parquet.

Unevenly difficult breathing

And they tremble on my chest

Flowers of an unforgettable date.

For the first time, the very concept of “lyrical hero” was apparently formulated by Yu.N. Tynyanov in his 1921 article “Blok,” written shortly after the poet’s death. Speaking about the fact that all of Russia mourns Blok, Tynyanov writes: “... about a human are sad.

And yet, who knew this man?..

Few people knew Blok. As a person, he remained a mystery to the wider literary Petrograd, not to mention the whole of Russia.

But throughout Russia know Blok as a person, they firmly believe in the certainty of his image, and if anyone happens to see his portrait at least once, they already feel that they know him thoroughly.

Where does this knowledge come from?

Blok is Blok’s biggest lyrical theme. This theme attracts as the theme of a novel of a still new, unborn (or unconscious) formation. About it lyrical hero and they are talking now.

He was necessary, a legend already surrounded him, and not only now - it surrounded him from the very beginning, it even seemed that his poetry only developed and complemented the postulated image.

All of Blok’s art is personified in this image; when they talk about his poetry, they almost always involuntarily substitute poetry human face- and everyone fell in love face, but not art» 21.

It is necessary to hear here from Tynyanov the intonation of dissatisfaction with this situation, when the poet himself was identified with his lyrical hero (there is another definition that can be found as a synonym for the term “lyrical hero”: “literary personality.” It, however, has not become commonly used). And the condemnation of such a naive, simple-minded identification is understandable. But it is also clear that in the case of Blok this was, perhaps to a certain extent, inevitable (“Blok is Blok’s greatest lyrical theme,” writes Tynyanov), although undesirable. How can we judge human qualities literary hero(while remembering, of course, that this is the work of the author artistic reality), so to a certain extent we imagine the lyrical hero as a person (but precisely to a certain extent, as a “literary personality”, an artistic image): his character, his view of the world are especially clearly expressed in the lyrics, where, in fact, the main thing and there is an assessment, an attitude, in other words, an axiological principle.

But why does Tynyanov talk about necessity the appearance of a lyrical hero? Here, perhaps, the idea arises that it was Blok’s lyrical hero who was destined to become the most striking manifestation of the traits of a hero of his time, and the poet himself was destined to become in the eyes of his contemporaries a “man of the era,” as A. Akhmatova called him (cf. in her poem about Blok: “tragic tenor of the era”). This means that we can say that the image of the lyrical hero expresses not only the world of the author himself: this image carries within itself the features of a man of his era. The lyrical hero appears both as a hero of his time, as a portrait of a generation.

This Tynyanov position, contained in his article as if in a compressed form, was later developed by L.Ya. Ginzburg in the book “On Lyrics”. She wrote about the image of a lyrical hero: “... a lyrical poet can create it only because the generalized prototype of a contemporary already exists in the public consciousness, is already recognized by the reader. So the generation of the 1830s. recognized the demonic hero Lermontov, the generation of the 1860s - Nekrasov’s commoner intellectual” 22. And perhaps this is precisely because, L. Ginzburg believes, that lyrics always speak about the universal, and the lyrical hero is one of the possibilities.

This means that it can be argued that the lyrical hero is a literary image that reflects the personality traits of the author himself, but who at the same time appears as a kind of portrait of a generation, a hero of the time; in the lyrical hero there is also a certain universal, all-human principle, traits, characteristic of people at any time. He thus appears as the “son of man” (in the words of A. Blok) and thanks to this quality he becomes necessary not only to his contemporaries, but also to the widest reader.

I must say, Yu.N. Tynyanov was not the only one who thought about the same range of problems in the first third of the twentieth century. For example, B.M. Eikhenbaum, in the same 1921, called his review of A. Akhmatova’s book of poems “The Plantain” a “lyric novel,” speaking of the book of poems as a kind of modern novel, and this unity was largely given to the book by the image of the lyrical heroine. Even earlier, in the 1910s, V. Bryusov and Vas wrote about the same property of Akhmatova’s poetry. Gippius. So Tynianov’s article was not the beginning, but a continuation of the observations of scientists and critics on the characteristics of the lyrical hero, as Tynianov first called him. Andrei Bely wrote about the “interindividuality” of poetry (that is, the ability of poetry to convey multiplicity through the “I”). And in the preface to the second edition of his poetry collection “Ashes” he spoke about his lyrical hero like this:

“I ask readers not to confuse me with him: the lyrical “I” is the “we” of the sketched consciousnesses, and not at all the “I” of B.N. Bugaev (Andrey Bely), in 1908 not running through the fields, but studied the problems of logic and poetry" 23.

This is how the poet separated the real person Boris Nikolaevich Bugaev, who took the pseudonym “Andrei Bely”, and the image of the lyrical hero.

Actually, many poets expressed this idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe non-identity of the author and the hero in lyric poetry. An example is a poem by A. Blok with an epigraph in Latin from Virgil: “Muse, remind me of the reasons!”

Publius Virgilius Maro
I remember the evening. We walked separately.

I trusted you with my heart,

There is a cloud in the hot sky - menacing

It was breathing on us; the wind subsided.

With the first thunderclap

You confessed your love to me hotly,

And I... fell at your feet...

The peculiarities of drama as a literary genre also determined the specific expression of the author's principle in it. Actually, the author owns only the stage directions or other remarks “accompanying” the play (for example, “Characters and costumes. Notes for gentlemen actors” in “The Inspector General” by N.V. Gogol). The title of the play, a possible epigraph, are also the so-called “strong places” in the drama, where you can see the author’s attitude towards what is depicted. But in drama there is no narration; as a rule, there is no place for the author’s direct word: these are the general properties of dramatic works. Many episodes in the history of drama are connected with this, when, for example, for a stage production it was necessary to transform, in relation to drama, an epic work. So, M.A. Bulgakov, reworking for the intended production in the 30s. " Dead Souls Gogol, introduced into the text of the play the figure of the Author, who followed his characters from Rome. The production never came to fruition - for various reasons, including due to the unusual nature of Bulgakov's plan.

Still, of course, drama also has its own opportunities for the manifestation of authorial activity. These can be heroes who serve as a mouthpiece for the author’s ideas, his alter ego (second self). Sometimes, even through a satirical character, the author can directly address the reader – the viewer. So, in “The Inspector General” the mayor throws a remark into the audience: “Why are you laughing? You laugh at yourself. Eh, you!..” But in general, in the drama the author manifests himself in the most hidden form. B.O. Corman identifies two main ways to express the author's consciousness: through the construction of the plot and composition of the play and through the speeches of the characters. He classifies the plays “Woe from Wit” by Griboedov and “The Thunderstorm” by Ostrovsky into the first type, and Pushkin’s “Boris Godunov” into the second type. For example, in “Boris Godunov” “in the monologues of the characters, a lot of space is occupied by epic text, going beyond the immediate stage action and unusually expanding the scope of what is depicted... In other cases, the epic text allows you to learn about what happened between two moments of the stage action... Finally, the hero can talk about events in the future tense... Epic stories , included in the monologues of the heroes... contain a detailed, coherent and extensive biography of the heroes... In dialogues, as well as in monologues, heroes in a number of cases talk about what their interlocutors already know, and, therefore, do not address their words as much to each other as directly to the reader... The author chooses heroes at different distances from the central scene of action. ... Behind the statements attributed to the characters, a single authorial principle is clearly and directly perceptible. In some cases... the subject of speech plays a purely service role: he does not have a proper dramatic function, and is needed only to communicate something. ...The entire poetic text of the tragedy is united by a super-personal, directly authorial style. ... By the will of the author, the heroes of the tragedy widely turn to means of poetic expression that are not determined by their characters. ... Sometimes a poetic image used by one hero is picked up and developed by his interlocutor... The epic type of thinking and the epic manner of writing also determine the nature of the author's remarks. For example, the “Forest” scene opens with the following note: “In the distance lies a dying horse.” This is clearly not intended for stage implementation” 25. (However, in the twentieth century, the so-called “epic theater” of B. Brecht became possible, which only confirms the scientist’s correctness.)

The change of points of view is also important in the play: large or overall plan, a look at what is happening through the eyes of one or another character. In other cases, the author's attitude towards characters and events is manifested in the construction of the plot and in the composition of the drama. “...the selection of material, its arrangement, and especially the development of action are important means of expressing the author’s thoughts in Woe from Wit. It is with their help that both the irreconcilability of Chatsky’s conflict with Famusov’s society and its originality are shown, which lies in the fact that this irreconcilability is first realized by society and only then – slowly and difficultly – by Chatsky” 26 . If we ignore what was said only about “Woe from Wit,” then the above judgments about the plot and composition of the play as manifestations of the author’s will can be attributed to dramatic works in general.

* * *

As a final result, we can cite the definition of V.V. Vinogradov, although made by a linguist, was accepted, it seems, by both philological sciences - linguistics and literary criticism (although the problems associated with the image of the author continue to remain the subject of controversy: and this only proves their importance for modern philology). “The image of the author is not a simple subject of speech; most often it is not even named in the structure of the work of art. This is a concentrated embodiment of the essence of the work, uniting the entire system of speech structures of the characters in their relationship with the narrator, storyteller or storytellers and through them being the ideological and stylistic focus, the focus of the whole” 27.

The author's problem continues to exist in our time central problem literary studies 28. Simultaneously with Russian philologists and independently of them in the second half of the twentieth century (more precisely, in the 60s, just when the attention of Russian scientists to the problem of the author and especially to the subjective organization of the work intensified), the French researcher R. Barthes put forward the then famous thesis about the “death of the author.” According to Barth, the author as a personal category is being replaced by the “scriptor” (writer). Now, with the passage of time, in this situation one can see a polemic with traditional literary criticism (more precisely, its vulgar application), when naively and flatly, the biography of the author and his work were directly connected. (In a broader, philosophical sense, this was a kind of reaction to the crisis of religious consciousness, when two world wars and numerous tragedies of the twentieth century gave rise to the collapse of many theological views. This crisis, due to its scale, can be called almost a global phenomenon.) So, the comer to replace the author, the scriptor was declared an impersonal category - thus, the personal principle did not play any role in the creation of the work, authorial responsibility and involvement in the created text was denied. In the dialogue between the author and the reader (this is how M. Bakhtin understood the literary work, and Barthes apparently relied on his concept), now, after the “death” of the author, the main role was assigned to the reader, but again an impersonal reader. “..the text is woven from quotes referring to thousands cultural sources. A writer... can only eternally imitate what has been written before and was not written for the first time; in his power only to mix different types of writing, to pit them against each other, without relying entirely on any of them... To assign an Author to a text means, as it were, to stop the text, to endow it with final knowledge, to close the letter... writing constantly generates meaning, but it immediately disappears...” The main role, as was said, is now given to the reader, who is free to “create” his own countless meanings. Thus, before us is no longer a dialogue between the author and the reader, but also not creative process reading. The reader, as faceless (impersonal) as the scriptor, becomes the point of application of the “letter” (a term proposed instead of “work” or “text”). “The reader is the space where every single quotation that makes up the letter is imprinted; the text finds unity not in its origin, but in its purpose, only the purpose is not a personal address; the reader is a person without history, without biography, without psychology, he is just someone, bringing together all the strokes that make up a written text. ...the birth of the reader has to be paid for by the death of the Author” 29.

The most productive in this concept turned out to be, as it becomes clear with the passage of time, the idea of ​​“interaction” between texts: new and previous ones; they are conceived as a kind of unified cultural field, and the reader’s task is to grasp the entire cultural context in which the “letter” falls or in which it is created (by itself?..) as if independently of the consciousness of the author. In fact, the cultural field exists, and every writer, whether he is aware of it or not, relies on the experience of his predecessors.

In modern foreign literary criticism, a direction has emerged - narratology, which studies a work as a system of subjects of speech - storytellers (narrator, English - narrator, French - narrateur, German - Erzähler). And in this tradition, they distinguish (although there is no complete unity in concepts among foreign scientists) between a personal or impersonal narrator, although we will not find the concept of “narrator” here. And - regardless of the Russian tradition and without familiarity with the works of, for example, B. O. Corman and the scientists of his school - here it is customary to contrast the storyteller-narrator (narrator) and the “real” (“specific”, in our terminology - biographical) author. In order to “separate” the real author from the image of the author, the concepts of “implicit” and “abstract” author are used (analogous to our concept of the author in the second meaning) 30 .

Moscow State University of Printing Arts. Ivan Fedorov
Faculty of Publishing and Journalism
Department of Periodicals.
(extramural studies)

Test on the basics of literary theory:
“The image of the author in a work of art.” Completed by: FIDIZH – 1st year
Morozova K.O.

Moscow, 2012.
The word “author” (from the Latin auctor – subject, action, founder, organizer, teacher, and in particular, the creator of a work) has several meanings in the field of art criticism. This is, firstly, the creator of a work of art as a real person with a certain fate, biography, complex individual traits. Secondly, this is the image of the author, localized in the literary text, i.e. depiction by a writer, painter, sculptor, director of himself. And finally, thirdly, this is the artist-creator, present in his creation as a whole, immanent in the work. The author presents and illuminates reality in a certain way, comprehends and evaluates them, and also demonstrates his creative energy.
But what exactly is the image of the author in a work?
A.N. Sokolov in his “Theory of Style” writes: “The concept of the image of the author requires further development. How is it refracted in other arts where its “speech structure” is absent? Is it possible to find the image of the author in every literary work, or is it sometimes necessary to talk only about the expression of the author’s personality in the work, about the author’s “prism” through which what is depicted is refracted, about the position of the author? But no matter how these issues are resolved, there is no doubt that the image of the author or the author’s personality is one of the most important and defining “components” of a literary and artistic work in general.” This also includes what he calls the “stamp” of the author’s personality. “The image of the author,” explains A.N. Sokolov, is, more broadly and more precisely, an expression of the artist’s personality in his creation.
The image of the author is an image that is formed or created from the main features of the poet’s work. He embodies and sometimes also reflects elements of his artistically transformed biography. A.F. Potebnya rightly pointed out that the lyric poet “writes the history of his soul (and indirectly the history of his time).” Chekhov wrote to Vladimir Ivanovich Nemirovich-Danchenko about S. Naidenov’s play “Money”: “It is important that there is a play, and that the author is felt in it. IN current plays that you have to read, there is no author, as if they were all made in the same factory, by the same machine; in Naynov’s plays there is an author.” V.B. Kataev, in the article “Towards the Statement of the Problem of the Image of the Author,” dispersing this problem between stylistics, sociology, psychology and literary criticism, writes: “The image of the author is in the plot, in the composition, landscape, characters, and ways of connecting them.”
Indeed, it would be wrong to see the possibility of only a linguistic description of the author’s image. The human essence of the author is reflected in elements that, being expressed through language, are not linguistic. Comprehension of the human concreteness of the author’s image cannot be achieved by just describing the forms of interaction between different speech layers in a work.”
The question of internal monologue is also closely related to the problem of the image of the author and its structure. In an open form, the images of authors and storytellers are intertwined and mixed in multi-colored varieties of tales. V. Kaverin notes: “World literature, in my opinion, has approached the period when, having discovered an internal monologue through Russian literature of the 19th century and, in a transformed form, using it in New American and then in English, she exhausted this discovery. The period of internal monologue has now, it seems to me, ended, and the time of Tolstoy-Flaubert has come again...

No matter how important the study of the speech organization of a text is (identifying the basic units of the text, methods of presentation), this study cannot be complete and adequate if we ignore such an important concept for text formation and text perception as the author’s modality, which binds all units of the text into a single semantic and structural whole.

The perception of the author's personality through the forms of its embodiment in the text is a bidirectional process. It focuses on the relationship between the author and the reader. Modality is the expression in the text of the author’s attitude to what is being communicated, his concept, point of view, position, and his value orientations.

This is the author's assessment of what is depicted. The ways of expressing this attitude can be different, selective for each author and type of text, they are motivated and purposeful. Thus, the choice of these methods is always faced with some kind of non-speech task, the implementation of which creates its own modality of the text. General modality as an expression of the author’s attitude to what is being communicated makes us perceive the text not as a sum of individual units, but as a whole work. Such perception is based not on considering the qualities of individual speech units, but on establishing their functions as part of the whole. In this case, the author’s personal attitude is perceived as “a concentrated embodiment of the essence of the work, uniting the entire system of speech structures...” (V.V. Vinogradov). Thus, the text cannot be understood narrowly, only as a formal organization of theme-rhematic sequences (a combination of statements). The text really consists of these sequences, but it is something more: the text is the unity of formal and substantive elements, taking into account the target setting, the intention of the author, the conditions of communication and the personal orientations of the author - scientific, intellectual, social, moral, aesthetic, etc.

The concept of the “image of the author” has long been known to philological science. V.V. paid especially much attention to its disclosure. Vinogradov back in the 30s of the XX century. Many have addressed this concept, but there is still no complete clarity here.

The concept of “image of the author” is highlighted when identifying and isolating other concepts, more defined and specific - speech producer, subject of the story. The peak of this ascent is the image of the author. The producer of speech - the subject of the narrative - the image of the author - such hierarchical division helps to comprehend the essence of the sought concept, i.e. image of the author. The first concept in this series - speech producer (real speech producer) - is unlikely to give rise to different interpretations. This is obvious: every text, literary work is created, “created” by a specific person. Any article in a newspaper, essay, feuilleton; any scientific essay, just like a work of art, is written by someone, sometimes in collaboration (for example, I. Ilf and E. Petrov, etc.).

However real author(speech producer), when starting to write, has a specific goal or task: either he sets this task for himself, or receives it from the outside (for example, a newspaper correspondent). From this moment creativity begins: under the pressure of life material (ideas, content that have already formed in the consciousness, in the imagination), the author searches for, gropes for, a form that corresponds to it, i.e. form of presentation of this material. How to write? Revealing your personal beginning or hiding it, moving away from what is written, as if it were not his, the author’s, creation at all. A journalist writing an editorial, for example, has little to worry about in this sense - he must organize his writing in such a way that it creates the impression that it was not he who wrote: this is a representation of the opinion of the editors (appropriate speech forms of detachment from his text are chosen). The author of a scientific essay often hides behind the modest “we” (we believe; it seems to us etc.), or generally avoids any indication of connection with his personality, using an impersonal form of presenting the material. Thus, from the point of view of the author, the creator of the text, the degree of objectivity of the expressed opinion increases. The third category of scientists does not hide their “I” and often in this case seems to be looking for an opponent to their opinion. Even any official document has its direct creator, but in terms of the form of presentation, he is completely detached from his text. So, through the presentation form, it is created subject of the story(immediate self, collective author, detached, etc.).

The most difficult and painful is the search for a form of representation of the subject of the narrative, naturally, in a work of art. Here the producer of speech, the real author (writer), literally finds himself in a vice: he is pressured by the life material chosen according to his interest, the desire to find the most vivid and convincing form of its embodiment, his moral attitude to the event, his vision of the world, and finally, he cannot free himself from your passions.

We know, for example, the torment of F. Dostoevsky when determining the form of the subject of the narrative when creating “The Teenager”: from the author or from “I”? For almost six months Dostoevsky was tormented by the question of how to write a novel. Yu. Karyakin, who studied this issue, counted about 50 statements by Dostoevsky on this subject. And this was by no means a search for a “pure form”. This was a deeply meaningful question. This was the path to artistic and spiritual development. “From me or from the author?” - reflects Dostoevsky. “From me - more originality and more love, and more artistry is required, and terribly boldly, and a shorter, easier disposition, and a clearer character of the teenager as the main person... But won’t the reader get tired of this originality? And most importantly, the main ideas of the novel - can they be naturally and fully expressed by a 20-year-old writer? And further: “From I, from I, from I!” Again doubt: “The rude and impudent tone of the teenager at the beginning of the notes should change in the last parts. It was not in vain that I sat down to write, I brightened in spirit and now I feel brighter and more truly...” So after all, “Is it from me or not?” and, finally, the solution: “From Me.” Dostoevsky painfully, for a long time, searched for this form, carried out the finest work to reveal the feat of the Teenager, the feat of his confession-diary.

No less difficult (E.A. Ivanchikova writes about this) was the search for the embodiment of the subject of the narrative in another novel by F. Dostoevsky - “The Idiot”. Here two narrative layers are combined, embodied in two subjects of the narrative - the conventional narrator and the undeclared author. Everything that is subject to external observation (action, scene, appearance) is conducted on behalf of the narrator. When revealing the inner world, the author himself enters the narrative. The form of narration with a two-subject author creates the effect of a three-dimensional image of the human world as the center of artistic reality. Sometimes the author's voice sounds directly (in discussions about epilepsy, about extreme stress, about “strange dreams”). When revealing the mental state of Prince Myshkin, the author is as close as possible to his hero; he perceives his surroundings through his eyes. IN author's story the voice of this hero bursts in - in the form of improperly direct speech.

Both of these narrative forms often coexist within the same paragraph. A narration with such a bifurcated, two-subject author is characterized by not always clearly recording the transitions between the narration from the author and from the narrator. Dostoevsky's texts are usually narrated not only by the author himself, but also by his deputy - a fictitious narrator. In “The Possessed,” for example, this is the officially announced chronicler, and at the same time he is a character. Other times it is a hidden second narrator.

Other writers choose other forms of storytelling that are consonant with them. It is known, for example, that Flaubert avoided using the pronouns “I” and “me”. His heroes speak. It’s as if he doesn’t exist at all. He dissolved in his heroes, reincarnated in them (for example, writing the scene of the poisoning of Madame Bovary).

So, the subject of the narration is chosen, but, having already been chosen, found, is constructed by speech means capable of embodying, creating it (in the first person, - the “I” of the author or the “I” of the character; from a fictional person; detached; impersonal, etc. .). Charles Dickens and O. Balzac were constantly present in their works. F. Dostoevsky, N. Gogol resort to peculiar digressions in order to directly, directly convey their thoughts. In another case, it is important that the author does not obscure or replace the “subject”, so that it appears clearly before the “reader”. For L. Tolstoy, in particular, it is important that the author “stands just a little outside the subject” in order to constantly doubt whether it is subjective or objective.

Such a difference in the presentation of the subject of the narrative, in the choice of form (speech, of course, in the first place) of this presentation lays the foundation for constructing the image of the author. This is the highest form of individualization of authorship in the gradation “producer of speech - subject of narration - image of the author.” Such differentiation will help avoid confusion and displacement of these related concepts.

To understand the image of the author, it is necessary to clarify some of the specifics of this object. And it, in particular, is directly related to revealing the essence of the concept of accuracy. Accuracy - necessary condition scientific definitions and explanations. However, the accuracy itself varies in different sciences. Thus, accuracy in literary criticism must be understood in a special way; we are interested in literary criticism insofar as the concept of the image of the author arose in the depths of philology, already in literary criticism. And initially it was applied only to fiction (Academician V.V. Vinogradov). Here the requirement of accuracy is not absolute; in any case, it raises the question of the degree of acceptable accuracy.

The fact is that the concept of the author’s image, being inaccurate from the point of view exact sciences, turns out to be quite accurate for literary criticism, if we accept the idea of ​​​​the special nature of accuracy in artistic creativity. The image of the author, naturally, is created in a literary work by means of speech, since without a verbal form there is no work itself, but this image is created by the reader. It is in the area of ​​perception, perception, of course, given by the author, and not always given by the will of the author himself. Precisely because the image of the author relates more to the sphere of perception rather than material expression, difficulties arise in accurately defining this concept. Although, of course, the image of the author is created on the basis of the structure of the text. By the way, there are many such concepts, difficult to grasp and define, although they undoubtedly exist, in science; take, for example, the same subtext.

V.B. Kataev, in his article “On the Statement of the Problem of the Image of the Author,” made an important remark: “It would be wrong to see the possibility of only a linguistic description of the image of the author. The human essence of the author is reflected in elements that, being expressed through language, are not linguistic.”

This remark turned out to be quite important. Of course, the image of the author should be sought “in the principles and laws of verbal and artistic construction” (according to V.V. Vinogradov), but the image of the author, like deep meaning works are more perceived, guessed, reproduced than read in materially represented verbal signs (cf. different reading work of art - by different people, in different eras). By the way, V.V. himself Vinogradov, although he polemicizes with V.B. Kataev, subtly analyzing the artistic fabric of the works, revealing this “human essence of the author” through artistic speech, sculpted it, i.e. co-created, co-authored.

To reinforce this idea about the human essence of the author, we present several excerpts and statements regarding the manifestation of the author’s personality in his work, his attitude to what is depicted in the work.

“The Creator is always depicted in creation and often against his will” (N.M. Karamzin).

“Every writer, to a certain extent, portrays himself in his writings, often against his will” (W. Goethe).

“Every work of art is always a faithful mirror of its creator, and no one can disguise his nature in it” (V.V. Stasov).

“In every work of art, great or small, down to the smallest, everything comes down to a concept” (W. Goethe).

“The most original writers of modern times are original not because they present us with something new, but because they know how to talk about things as if they had never been said before” (W. Goethe).

“The work of the most talented author necessarily reflects his personality, because this is what artistic creativity consists of: external objective material is processed, quite individually, by the psyche of the artist” (V.V. Vorovsky).

“... Any selection - and the selection made by the television camera itself, and even before the selection dictated by the plan of the future program, not to mention subsequent cuts, editing and commentary text - results in, no matter how hard you try, an accurate and true cast of life itself, as it really is, but only a cast from your idea of ​​it - about what is important in it, worthy of attention and recording on film, and what is secondary and insignificant. And if this is so, then the screen is always fraught with the danger of passing off your idea of ​​the truth of life as the whole truth, as life itself, and this will, at best, be just a semblance of the truth, no more ... " (Iuliu Edlis. Intermission).

As we see, we are not talking about the author’s individuality, its manifestation in the work. Perhaps this comes closest to the concept of the author’s image. The image of the author is “the expression of the artist’s personality in his creation” (according to V. Vinogradov). This is often called differently: subjectivization, i.e. creative consciousness of the subject in its relation to objective reality.

The subject of speech can be the author himself, the narrator, the storyteller, the publisher, or various characters. However, all this is united and highlighted by the author’s attitude - ideological, moral, social, aesthetic. This personal attitude towards the subject of the image, embodied in the speech structure of the text, is the image of the author, the cement that connects all the elements of the text into a single whole. L.N. Tolstoy wrote: “The cement that binds every work of art into one whole and therefore produces the illusion of a reflection of life is not the unity of persons and positions, but the unity of the original moral attitude of the author to the subject.”

Concentrating this, in essence, thought, V.V. Vinogradov wrote: “The image of the author... the center, the focus in which all the stylistic devices of works of verbal art are crossed and united, synthesized.” The image of the author is not the subject of speech; often it is not even named in the structure of the work. This “concentrated embodiment of the essence of the work” (V.V. Vinogradov) or “the moral original attitude of the author to the subject of presentation” (L. Tolstoy) is naturally created in a verbal work through verbal constructions. For A. Chekhov, for example, the problem of the author’s image is transformed into “subjectivity of style.” L. Tolstoy wrote: “In any work of art, what is most important, valuable and most convincing for the reader is the author’s own attitude to life and everything in the work that is written in relation to this attitude. The integrity of a work of art lies not in the unity of the concept, not in the treatment of the characters, but in the clarity and certainty of the author’s own attitude to life, which permeates the entire work.”

We can give the following definition: a personal attitude towards the subject of the image, embodied in the speech structure of the text (work), is the image of the author.

The definition of the image of the author “as the semantic-stylistic center of a literary work” turns out to be scientifically promising and applied to texts of a different functional-style orientation, not only artistic ones, because the organization of speech means to convey any content (scientific, aesthetic) is always carried out interpretatively, in an authorial, unidirectional manner. Each author's text is characterized by a general, chosen method of organizing speech, often chosen unconsciously, since this method is inherent in the personality, and it is this method that reveals the personality. In some cases, this is an open, evaluative, emotional structure of speech; in others - detached, hidden: objectivity and subjectivity, concreteness and generality-abstraction, logic and emotionality, restrained rationality and emotional rhetoric - these are the qualities that characterize the way of organizing speech. Through this method we recognize the author, distinguish, for example, A. Chekhov from L. Tolstoy, A. Platonov from V. Tendryakov, etc. An individual, unique image of the author is created, or, more precisely, the image of his style, idiostyle.

The subjective authorial principle is especially active in poetry. Here this is the image of the poet’s soul, living spontaneity, momentary movement of the soul. From here main genre poetic work - lyric poems. The image of the lyrical hero obscures everything; the lyrical hero is talking with himself. There is a conditional addressee - nature, objects, humanity as a whole. But this is always a conversation for yourself, for self-expression. Lyric poetry is the realm of subjectivity. In epic literature it can be like this: no matter how the writer is invisible, the world develops by itself, this is the reality of existence. V. Belinsky also emphasized this: “A writer can be, as it were, a simple narrator of what happens by itself (the internal, as it were, does not coincide with the external); in poetry there is complete identity.”

But you can explore the author’s image from a different perspective. The key to this concept is not only in what is created by the author himself, but also in what is perceived by the reader. Since in perception there is always an accumulation of some impressions, which ultimately lead to some generalizations, then in this case we can come to the conclusion about the possibility of generalized perception on the basis of a given individual, i.e. about the possibility of perception generalized image of the author. And if so, then this image may be subject to deformation or different images may be typifiable, acquiring typological characteristics. For example, the image of the author is subject to deformation when the image of the performer (artist, reader, reciter, teacher) is layered on it and penetrates into it (V.V. Vinogradov spoke partly about this).

There are many opinions and discussions about illustrations in fiction, in particular. It is known, for example, that Flaubert and R. Rolland did not tolerate illustrations of their works.

The reader must create images following his imagination; illustrations can form a barrier between the author, his intention and the reader's perception. Illustrations are also subjectively individualized; they can conflict with the author’s attitude towards them and with the reader’s associations. A visual image can interfere with the crystallization of the reader's thoughts with its concreteness.

V.A. Favorsky wrote: “Should an artist, intending to illustrate a literary work, limit his task only to conveying the plot? His task is much broader and deeper. It should convey the style of the book.”

This conversation is about illustrators, i.e. about possible interpretations of the essence of a work of art, sheds light on the very concept of the image of the author. If one and the same object can be represented and illuminated in different ways, then this “difference” is caused by something. With what? The essence of the very personality of the author (interpreter). For example, Vrubel’s illustrations for “Anna Karenina” and “The Demon”. Things are incompatible in themselves, just as their authors are incompatible in their essence, manner, etc. However, in the interpretation of one author - Vrubel - they agree. Consequently, these illustrations reflected to a greater extent the personality of Vrubel, and not M. Lermontov or L. Tolstoy, while fully preserving the factual essence - the situation, provisions, plot points. Likewise, a literary work is only an illusion of a reflection of life, but in reality it is the author’s interpretation of it. And this, naturally, is done through speech (there are simply no others!). “Difference” can also appear in the work of one author, but this difference will be of this author, and not of different authors. Here are examples.

If it were unknown who wrote “Approaching Izhora...” and who wrote “The Prophet,” then it would be impossible to guess that these are the works of the same author. Most likely, this is not a different author, but a different state of mind of the same author. Therefore, one should consider the unified style of these two, as well as many other works. This makes us think that style as a unity is comprehended not only on the basis of a work or their totality, but also through the author, no matter how diverse (or multi-style?) his work may be.

“Just as a complex mechanism combines very different details, just as in a tree roots, bark, branches, wood, leaves, flowers or fruits have completely different characters from each other, so the poet’s style combines styles subordinate to it.

The fact that the very light playfulness of the first of the just named poems and the most extreme seriousness of the second are the property of the same poet already reveals the range, dynamics and internal diversity of his style. The style of A. Pushkin's lyrics is, in its diversity and even inconsistency, an integral set of very different styles. Pushkin’s lyrical poem is by no means necessarily focused on the poet himself; its subject matter covers a wide sphere of life, both Russian and international, modern and historical. Subject appeal is crucial for style. And yet the personal intonation always remains distinct and strong.”

You can extend this comparison with a tree: roots, leaves, etc. differ from each other as substances, but these are the roots and leaves of oak, or birch, or linden; these roots and leaves belong to the same tree.

What is the unity of Pushkin’s lyrics, given the wide range of stylistic diversity? - In the special non-alienation of the author, who “is equally present in the life of the autumn forest, in the dispute of ancient sages, in the political catastrophes of contemporary Europe, in the stormy confusion of the human spirit, in what someone who once put in a book could experience a long-withered flower."

Returning to such different works of Pushkin, we can say that before us are not different images of the author, but a reflection of different states of mind of the same author.

This is how unity in diversity manifests itself. And this unity is the image of the author embodied in speech and generally and abstractly perceived, perhaps more accurately felt and reproduced.

The perception of the same objects and phenomena may be different for different authors. For Saltykov-Shchedrin ( "Poshekhon antiquity"), for example, fog is " harmful effects of swamp fumes" And for Blok... “Breathing with perfume and mists, she sits by the window”.

“One sees a cobblestone underfoot, another sees a star that has fallen from heaven”. Doing the same thing, one is grinding stones, the other is building a palace. It is this human essence that is embedded in the image of the author when a person begins to create. Even the Chichikovs, as you know, become poets for a few minutes in their lives... Representatives of Poshekhonye do not have this either: “Fabble, with an old-looking face, devoid of lively colors, with a soft, fleshy nose, like a crumpled shoe”(This is what Saltykov-Shchedrin says about the narrator’s sister). Behind every word here stands a knowledgeable and formidable author, an author who has suffered the pain of a humiliated and evil person. This is the image of a stern and suffering author. The power and earthiness of his style comes from suffering. But this is no longer just Saltykov-Shchedrin, this is his image, the image of his style. At the same time, it is a generalized artistic image. Typification begins where generalization and elevation above the individual and specific are possible. Let's take F. Tyutchev. Only one of his stylistic features is his bifurcated epithet. Even through this detail we perceive a generalized image of a poet-philosopher, a poet-sage. Its bifurcated epithet is the movement of life, feeling, thought. It contains the transitional, unstable, unsteady; it contains the whole philosophy of life - and the philosophy “precisely Tyutchev’s”: the joyful is merged with the sorrowful, light and darkness are mixed ( blissfully fateful day, prophetically blind instinct, proudly fearful, blissfully indifferent, dark-dawning). The idea of ​​transience and movement is hidden here, it goes inside, the philosophical essence is only comprehended, but not imposed. The image of the poet Tyutchev is born through his speech, born in the relationship “man and the universe.” Compare: openness, nakedness of the socio-political idea in Nekrasov ( “So you may not be a poet, but you must be a citizen”). This is how typification arises: poet-philosopher, poet-citizen, poet-tribune. Fet is a contemplative poet, etc.

Another example. I. Bunin avoided direct expression of his feelings, author’s thoughts, and rhetorical edification. But the light of the author’s, specifically Bunin’s, attitude colored all his works. The style is restrained, but not dispassionate, internally tense, “ringing” with every word. And in prose, Bunin is a poet, a thinker. There is a piercing, cosmic cold in his nostalgia:

Ice night, mistral

(it hasn't died down yet).

I see shine and distance through the windows

Mountains, naked hills.

Golden, motionless light

I went to bed.

There is no one in the sublunary

Only me and God.

Only he knows mine

Dead sadness

The one that I hide from everyone...

Cold, shine, mistral.

And what kind of discreet, unflorid, unostentatious, but deeply human features color the tender, nakedly heartfelt world of A. Platonov? (“Tears and happiness,” he writes, “ were near her heart»; « U human heart " - this is what Platonov wanted to call one of his books.)

This is the image of the author as a quiet interlocutor, not a speaker; he is always “near the human heart, and not above their heads.” Platonov's artistic world is infinitely restrained. The absence of striking, biting assessments is revealed even in his satirical works, where he appears as a lyrical satirist. This unusual image (lyricist and satirist) is molded by unusual combinations of words, materialization of the meaning of abstract concepts ( Voshchev walked past people, feeling the growing strength of his grieving mind and increasingly secluded in the closeness of his sadness- “Pit”) Voshchev is “removed from production” due to the growth of weakness and thoughtfulness in him amid the general pace of work.”.

Plato's concretization of meaning (identification of abstract concepts and concrete material realities) is often unusual from the point of view of linguistic expression, but not from the point of view of correspondence to reality ( chill alone, close your eyes in patience, run in free air, wait for time). He perceives grief and torment as concrete substances capable of filling containers (here, the heart). The ability to sense the human soul as something almost physically tangible, like the living surface of the heart, shyness before pathos - this is how the image of A. Platonov is perceived.

The image of the author is constructed and perceived (mutual creativity “author - reader”) and, by the way, is typified not only in fiction. We can give examples from legal literature and oratory speeches in which the personality of a judicial worker is clearly revealed.

So, the trinity “the real producer of speech - the subject of the narrative - the image of the author” is a scale of ascent from the specific to the generalized, from reproduction to perception, from objective to subjective.

We can conclude that there is a real speech producer in any work, of any type and genre of literature. This authorship is embodied in different forms of the subject of the narration: the impersonal form predominates in official business works, although here too the genre specificity shakes the general impersonality (autobiography, statement, complaint, etc.). In scientific literature, the form of representation of the subject of the narration can be characterized as personal-impersonal (gravitation towards an impersonal form - especially in technical literature; however, the personality of the scientist is felt to a greater or lesser extent in scientific literature; here we can talk not only about the subject of the narration, but also about the image of the author, since even typification is possible: the image of a scientist-statator, an accumulator of facts; the image of a theoretician scientist; the image of a polemicist scientist, etc.).

These categories become even more complicated in journalistic works, and genre features of certain works of journalism influence specific forms of representation of the subject of the narrative and construction of the image of the author. The essay has the most personal character; the editorial is polar in this regard (the differences are felt on the axis of subjectivity - objectivity). It is clear that the more personality is manifested in the genre of journalism, the closer this genre is to fiction, where the entire structure of the text is highly personal, even subjectively personal. In fiction, this originality is embodied in the hallmark of true art.

The image of the author is bidirectional: it is the result of co-creation (it is created, created by the author, even more precisely, it is revealed through the author’s specificity and is perceived, recreated by the reader). And since perception can be different and is not always clearly programmed by the author, the outlines of this image can be unsteady and wavering. For example, some will see in Bulgakov “the idleness and mystery of his luminous word,” others will see “a victorious irony that did not disdain everyday life, but rose above it.” Probably both will be correct. And these will be two images of Bulgakov. And at the same time, the image is the same in different faces. Of course, writes V. Lakshin, everyone creates their own Bulgakov in their imagination: I love the mocking, not worshiping anything, who had divine freedom in his work, which he probably lacked in life, a writer and a person. And further: “The core of his personality... is in the invariably ironic inclination of the mind and, like many great satirists, in the hidden lyricism of the soul.” This is what it says directly: on the one hand, the unique, individualized image of Bulgakov and, on the other hand, the typified image of the satirist with lyrical soul. Both - through the prism of individual perception (subjectivity) and on the basis of specific speech works (objectivity).

We are convinced that the image of the author is born through the perception of the author’s personality, reflected in his writings. Text critics know that by analyzing the semantic, stylistic and structural organization of a work, authorship can be established. What do researchers do in this case? They establish textually whether this writing is characteristic of a given author or not, whether the manner of writing corresponds to the prevailing idea of ​​his image. For example, V.V. Vinogradov carefully analyzed the poem “Motherland,” known from a handwritten collection from the middle of the last century signed by D.V. Venevitinova.

Thanks to the finest stylistic analysis, relying on his idea of ​​​​the image of the poet Venevetinov, which developed for him while studying his works, V.V. Vinogradov proved that D.V. Venevetinov cannot be the author of this poem. The main proof is that the text does not correspond to the image of the author - a subtle and even refined poet. Another thing is interesting in this story: the poem “Motherland” forced researchers, literary historians, who did not question the authorship, because of its dissimilarity to everything that had been created by Venevitinov before, to draw new look poet, new image- Protestant, fighter against autocracy, i.e. to greatly thicken the “revolutionary colors” in his portrait-image.

Another example, also from a series of studies by V.V. Vinogradova. A letter from I. Krylov was found in the literary archive. Literary critic D.D. Blagoy believed that this was a letter from the fabulist I.A. Krylov - people-lover and patriot. Meanwhile, V.V. Vinogradov wrote: “The writing style leads to the image of a clerical casuist. The image of a casuist-official embodied in this letter “takes us far away from poetry”, from poetry and - even with very great desire and zeal - cannot in any way be connected with way famous fabulist I.A. Krylov, especially since archaeographic and historical evidence contradicts this.”

In conclusion, it can be noted that understanding the essence of the concept of the author’s image and identifying its relationship to the concepts of the producer of speech and the subject of the narrative can help the editor in understanding the essence of a literary work and will prevent the possibility of destroying the semantic-stylistic structural integrity of printed works.