The inner world of Likhachev's literary work. D. Likhachev "The Inner World of a Work of Art"

playing with these images, corresponding to the special ability of our psyche:

creativity of art.

b) Plot - a theme in which different situations and motives are scurrying about.

C) Plots are complex schemes in the imagery of which well-known acts are summarized

human life and psyche in alternating forms of everyday life

in reality, the evaluation of the action is already connected with the generalization,

positive or negative.

9) The history of poetic style, deposited in a complex of typical

images-symbols, motifs, phrases, parallels and comparisons, repetition

or whose commonality is explained either a) by the unity of psychological

processes that found expression in them, or b) historical influences.

8. Likhachev D.S. "The inner world of a work of art"

1) The inner world of a work of verbal art (literary or

folklore) has a certain artistic integrity. Separate

elements of reflected reality are connected to each other in this

inner world in a certain system, artistic unity.

2) The mistake of literary scholars who note various “loyalties” or

“infidelity” in the artist’s depiction of reality lies in the fact that

that, dividing the integral reality and the integral world of art

works, they make both incommensurable: they measure in light years

apartment area.

3) The approximate “real” time of events is not equal to artistic time.

4) The moral side of the world of a work of art is also very important and

has, like everything else in this world, a direct “constructive”

meaning. The moral world of works of art is constantly changing with

development of literature.

5) The world of a work of art reproduces reality in a certain way

"shortened", conditional version.

6) The space of a fairy tale is unusually large, it is limitless, infinite, but

at the same time closely related to action. Thanks to the features

artistic space and artistic time in a fairy tale

exceptionally favorable conditions for the development of action. Action in

it is easier to accomplish in a fairy tale than in any other genre of folklore.

7) Plot storytelling requires that the world of the work of fiction be

“easy” - easy, first of all, for the development of the plot itself.

8) Studying the artistic style of the work, author, movement, era,

one should pay attention first of all to what the world is like into

a work of art immerses us, what its time, space,

social and material environment, what are the laws of psychology and movement in it

ideas, what are the general principles on the basis of which all these individual

elements are connected into a single artistic whole.

9. Shklovsky V. “Art as a technique”

1) Imaginative thinking is not, in any case, what unites all types

art, or even just all types of verbal art, images are not

something the change of which is the essence of the movement of poetry.

Thus, a thing can be: a) created as prosaic and perceived,

as poetic, b) created as poetic and perceived as

prosaic.

2) The poetic image is one of the means of poetic language. Prosaic

the image is a means of distraction.

3) The purpose of art is to give the sensation of a thing as a vision, and not as

recognition; The technique of art is the technique of “defamiliarizing” things and the technique

difficult form, increasing the difficulty and length of perception, since

the perceptual process in art is self-sufficient and must be extended;

art is a way of experiencing the making of a thing, and what is done in art is not

important.

4) Poetic speech - speech-construction. Prose is ordinary speech: economical,

easy, correct (dea prorsa, - goddess of correct, easy childbirth,

“direct” position of the child).

10. Tynyanov Yu. “On literary evolution”

1) The position of literary history continues to remain among cultural

disciplines by the position of the colonial power.

2) The connection between the history of literature and living modern literature is a beneficial and

necessary for science - turns out to be not always necessary and beneficial for

developing literature, whose representatives are ready to accept history

literature for the establishment of certain traditional norms and laws and

the “historicity” of a literary phenomenon is confused with “historicism” in relation to

to him.

3) Historical research falls into at least two main types

at the observation post: research into the genesis of literary phenomena and

study of the evolution of the literary series, literary variability.

4) The main concept of literary evolution turns out to be a change of systems, and the question of

“traditions” is transferred to another plane.

5) The existence of a fact as literary depends on its differential

quality (i.e., from correlation with either literary or

extraliterary series), in other words - on its function.

6) Without the correlation of literary phenomena, there is no consideration of them.

7) The function of verse in a certain literary system was performed by formal

element of meter. But prose differentiates, evolves, at the same time

verse also evolves. Differentiation of one related type entails

itself or, better to say, is connected with the differentiation of another related

type.

8) The correlation of literature with the social series leads them to great verse

form.

9) The system of literary series is, first of all, a system of functions of literary

series, in continuous correlation with other series.

10) Everyday life is related to literature primarily by its speech side. The same

correlation of literary series with everyday life. This correlation of literary

series with everyday life occurs along the speech line, in literature in relation to

everyday life there is a speech function.

Generally: studying the evolution of literature is possible only with respect to

literature as a series, a system correlated with other series, systems,

conditioned by them. Consideration should proceed from the design function to

literary functions, from literary to speech. It must find out

evolutionary interaction of functions and forms. Evolutionary study must

go from the literary series to the nearest related series, and not to further ones,

albeit the main one. The dominant importance of the main social factors is not

only it is not rejected, but must be clarified in full, precisely in

the question of the evolution of literature, while the direct establishment

the “influence” of the main social factors is replaced by the study of evolution

literature - the study of modification of literary works, their deformation.

11. Lotman Yu.M. "Semiotics of culture and the concept of text"

I. Formulation of cultural semiotics - a discipline that examines interaction

differently structured semiotic systems, internal unevenness

semiotic space, the need for cultural and semiotic

polyglotism - has significantly shifted traditional semiotic

representation.

II. The social and communicative function of the text can be reduced to the following

processes.

1. Communication between the addresser and the addressee.

2. Communication between the audience and the cultural tradition.

3. The reader’s communication with himself.

4. Communication between the reader and the text.

5. Communication between text and cultural context

A special case will be the issue of communication between text and metatext.

III. The text appears before us not as the implementation of a message on any one

language, but as a complex device that stores diverse codes, capable

transform received messages and generate new ones, like information

a generator with intellectual personality traits. Due to this

the idea of ​​the relationship between the consumer and the text is changing. Instead of a formula

“the consumer decrypts the text”, a more accurate one is possible - “the consumer communicates

with text."

12. Bakhtin M.M. "The problem of text in linguistics, philology and other

humanities"

1) Two points that define a text as a statement: its design (intention) and

implementation of this plan.

The problem of the second subject, reproducing (for one purpose or another, including

including research) text (alien) and creating a framing text

(commenting, evaluating, objecting, etc.).

2) From the point of view of extra-linguistic purposes of the utterance, everything linguistic is

only a means.

3) To express oneself means to make oneself an object for another and for

itself (“the reality of consciousness”). This is the first stage of objectification.

4) With deliberate (conscious) multi-style between styles there is always

there are dialogic relationships. You can't understand this relationship

purely linguistically (or even mechanically).

5) Text is the primary given (reality) and the starting point of any

humanitarian discipline.

6) The word (in general, any sign) is interindividual. Everything said, expressed

is outside the “soul” of the speaker, does not belong only to him. The word is impossible

give to one speaker.

7) Linguistics deals with text, but not with work. Same as her

speaks about the work, is smuggled in and from purely

linguistic analysis does not follow.

8) Every large and creative verbal whole is very complex and

multifaceted system of relationships.

Short description

Epic and tragedy, as well as comedy, dithyrambic poetry and most

auletics and cyfaristics - they are all imitation. And they differ

from each other by three features: those that are reproduced by various means

or different objects, or in different, not the same, way.

Works should be distinguished not by form, but by content.

The inner world of a work of verbal art (literary or folklore) has a certain artistic integrity. The individual elements of reflected reality are connected with each other in a given inner world in a certain specific system, artistic unity.

When studying the reflection of the world of reality in the world of a work of art, literary scholars limit themselves for the most part to paying attention to whether individual phenomena of reality are correctly or incorrectly depicted in the work. Literary scholars enlist the help of historians to find out the accuracy of the depiction of historical events, psychologists and even psychiatrists to find out the accuracy of the depiction of the mental life of the characters. When studying ancient Russian literature, in addition to historians, we often turn to the help of geographers, zoologists, astronomers, etc. And all this, of course, is quite correct, but, alas, not enough. We usually do not study the inner world of a work of art as a whole, limiting ourselves to the search for “prototypes”: prototypes of a particular character, character, landscape, even “prototypes”, events and prototypes of the types themselves. Everything is “retail”, everything is in parts! In this regard, the world of a work of art appears scattered in our studies, and its relationship to reality is fragmented and lacks integrity.

At the same time, the mistake of literary critics, who note various “faithfulness” or “incorrectness” in the artist’s depiction of reality, essentially lies in the fact that, dividing the integral reality and the integral world of a work of art, they make both incommensurable: they measure the apartment area in light years.

True, it has become standard to point out the difference between a real fact and an artistic fact. We can encounter such statements when studying “War and Peace” or Russian epics and historical songs. The difference between the world of reality and the world of a work of art is already realized with sufficient acuteness. But the point is not to “be aware” of something, but also to define this “something” as an object of study.

In fact, it is necessary not only to state the very fact of differences, but also to study what these differences are, what causes them and how they organize the inner world of the work. We should not simply establish differences between reality and the world of a work of art and see only in these differences the specificity of a work of art. The specificity of a work of art by individual authors or literary movements can sometimes consist in just the opposite, that is, in the fact that these differences in certain parts of the inner world will be too few, and there will be too much imitation and accurate reproduction of reality.

In historical source studies, the study of a historical source was once limited to the question: true or false? After A. Shakhmatov’s works on the history of chronicle writing, such a study of the source was considered insufficient. A. Shakhmatov studied the historical source as an integral monument from the point of view of how this monument transforms reality: the purposefulness of the source, the worldview and political views of the author. Thanks to this, it became possible to use even a distorted, transformed image of reality as historical evidence. This transformation itself has become important evidence in the history of ideology and social thought. The historical concepts of the chronicler, no matter how they distort reality (and there are no concepts in the chronicle that do not distort reality), are always interesting for the historian, testifying to the historical ideas of the chronicler, his ideas and views on the world.
Posted on ref.rf
The concept of the chronicler itself became historical evidence. A. Shakhmatov made all the sources important and interesting to some extent for the modern historian, and we have no right to reject any source. It is only important to understand about what time the source being studied can give its testimony: whether about the time when it was compiled, or about the time about which it writes.

The situation is similar in literary criticism. Each work of art (if it is only artistic!) reflects the world of reality from its own creative perspective. And these angles are subject to comprehensive study in connection with the specifics of the work of art and, above all, in their artistic whole. When studying the reflection of reality in a work of art, we should not limit ourselves to the question: “true or false” - and admire only fidelity, accuracy, correctness. The inner world of a work of art also has its own interconnected patterns, its own dimensions and its own meaning, like a system.

Of course, and this is very important, the inner world of a work of art does not exist on its own and not for itself. It is not autonomous. It depends on reality, “reflects” the world of reality, but the transformation of this world, which allows for a work of art, has a holistic and purposeful character.
Posted on ref.rf
The transformation of reality is connected with the idea of ​​the work, with the tasks that the artist sets for himself. The world of a work of art is the result of both a correct reflection and an active transformation of reality. In his work, the writer creates a certain space in which the action takes place. This space should be large, covering a number of strange travel stories or even extend beyond the terrestrial planet (in fantasy and romantic novels), but it can also narrow down to the tight confines of a single room. The space created by the author in his work may have unique “geographical” properties, be real (as in a chronicle or historical novel) or imaginary, as in a fairy tale. The writer in his work also creates the time in which the action of the work takes place. The work may cover centuries or just hours. Time in a work can move quickly or slowly, intermittently or continuously, be intensely filled with events or flow lazily and remain “empty”, rarely “populated” with events.

Quite a lot of works are devoted to the issue of artistic time in literature, although their authors often replace the study of the artistic time of a work with the study of the author’s views on the problem of time and compile simple collections of statements by writers about time, without noticing or not attaching importance to the fact that these statements may be in contrast to that artistic time, the writer himself creates in his work 1.

1 For literature on artistic time and artistic space, see: D. S. Likhachev, Poetics of Old Russian Literature, Nauka, L. 1967, p.
Posted on ref.rf
213-214 and 357. Additionally I will indicate: Em. S t a i g s g, Die Zeit als Einbil-dungskraft des Dichters. Untersuchungen zu Gedichton Von Brentano, Goethe und Kcllor, Ziirich, 1939, 1953, 1963; H. W e i n r i s h, Tempus. Besprochene und crzahltc Welt, Stuttgart, 1964.

Works must also have their own psychological world, not the psychology of individual characters, but general laws of psychology that subordinate all characters, creating a “psychological environment” in which the plot unfolds. These laws can be different from the laws of psychology that exist in reality, and it is useless to look for exact correspondences in psychology textbooks or psychiatry textbooks. Thus, fairy tale heroes have their own psychology: people and animals, as well as fantastic creatures. They are characterized by a special type of reaction to external events, special argumentation and special responses to the arguments of antagonists. One psychology is characteristic of the heroes of Goncharov, another - of the characters of Proust, another - of Kafka, and a very special one - of the characters of the chronicle or the lives of saints. The psychology of Karamzin's historical characters or Lermontov's romantic heroes is also special. All these psychological worlds must be studied as a whole.

The same should be said about the social structure of the world of artistic works, and this social structure of the artistic world of the work should be distinguished from the author’s views on social issues and not confuse the study of this world with scattered comparisons of it with the world of reality. The world of social relations in a work of art also requires study in its integrity and independence.

You can also study the world of history in some literary works: in the chronicle, in the tragedy of classicism, in historical novels of realistic directions, etc. And in this area you will discover not only accurate or inaccurate reproductions of the events of real history, but also your own laws according to which historical events, its own system of causality or “uncausality” of events - in a word, its own... inner world of history. The task of studying this world of the history of a work is as different from studying a writer’s views on history as the study of artistic time is different from studying an artist’s views on time. You can study Tolstoy's historical views, as they are expressed in the famous historical digressions of his novel War and Peace, but you can also study how events unfold in War and Peace. These are two different tasks, although interrelated. However, I think that the last task is more important, and the first serves only as an aid (by no means a primary one) for the second. If Leo Tolstoy had been a historian and not a novelist, these two tasks would have changed places in terms of their significance. By the way, there is a curious pattern that emerges when studying the difference between writers’ views on history and its artistic depiction. As a historian (in his discussions on historical topics), the writer very often emphasizes the regularity of the historical process, but in his artistic practice he involuntarily highlights the role of chance in the fate of the historical and simple characters of his work. Let me remind you of the role of the hare sheepskin coat in the fate of Grinev and Pugachev in Pushkin’s “The Captain’s Daughter”. Pushkin the historian hardly agreed with Pushkin the artist on this point.

The moral side of the world of a work of art is also very important and, like everything else in this world, has a direct “constructive” meaning. So, for example, the world of medieval works knows absolute good, but evil in it is relative. For this reason, a saint cannot not only become a villain, but even commit a bad act. If he had done this, then he would not have been a saint from a medieval point of view, then he would have only been pretending, being a hypocrite, biding his time, etc.
Posted on ref.rf
etc.
Posted on ref.rf
But any villain in the world of medieval works can change dramatically and become a saint. Hence a kind of asymmetry and “unidirectionality” of the moral world of artistic works of the Middle Ages. This determines the originality of the action, the construction of plots (in particular, the lives of saints), the interested expectation of the reader of medieval works, etc.
Posted on ref.rf
(psychology of reader's interest - reader's "expectation" for continuation).

The moral world of works of art is constantly changing with the development of literature. Attempts to justify evil, to find objective reasons for it, to consider evil as a social or religious protest are characteristic of the works of the romantic movement (Byron, Njegos, Lermontov, etc.). In classicism, evil and good seem to stand above the world and acquire a unique historical coloring. In realism, moral problems permeate everyday life and appear in thousands of aspects, among which social aspects steadily increase as realism develops. Etc.

The building materials for constructing the inner world of a work of art are taken from the reality surrounding the artist, but he creates his own world in accordance with his ideas about what this world was, is or should be.

The world of a work of art reflects reality both indirectly and directly: indirectly - through the artist’s vision, through his artistic representations, and directly, directly in those cases when the artist unconsciously, without attaching artistic significance to this, transfers phenomena of reality or ideas and concepts into the world he creates. of his era.

I will give an example from the field of artistic time created in a literary work. This time of a work of art, as I have already said, can flow very quickly, “in jerks”, “nervously” (in Dostoevsky’s novels) or flow slowly and evenly (in Goncharov or Turgenev), be associated with “eternity” (in ancient Russian chronicles), capture a larger or smaller range of phenomena . In all these cases, we are dealing with artistic time - time that indirectly reproduces real time, artistically transforming it. If a modern writer, like us, divides the day into 24 hours, and a chronicler, in accordance with church services, into 9, then there is no artistic “task” or meaning in this. This is a direct reflection of the contemporary writer’s calculation of time, which has been transferred from reality without changes. It is worth saying that for us, of course, the first, artistically transformed time is important.

It is this that gives the opportunity for creativity, creates the “maneuverability” necessary for the artist, allows him to create his own world, different from the world of another work, another writer, another literary movement, style, etc.

The world of a work of art reproduces reality in a kind of “abbreviated”, conventional version. An artist, building his world, cannot, of course, reproduce reality with the same degree of complexity inherent in reality. In the world of a literary work there is not much that exists in the real world. This is a limited world in its own way. Literature takes only some phenomena of reality and then conventionally shortens or expands them, makes them more colorful or more faded, organizes them stylistically, but at the same time, as already said, creates its own system, an internally closed system and having its own laws.

Literature “replays” reality. This “replaying” occurs in connection with those “style-forming” trends that characterize the work of a particular author, a particular literary movement or the “style of an era”. These style-forming tendencies make the world of a work of art in some respects more diverse and richer than the world of reality, despite all its conventional abbreviation.

The inner world of a work of art - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Inner world of a work of art" 2017, 2018.

FORM OF ARTWORK. WORLD OF ARTWORK.

The world of a literary work (or the objective world, objective figurativeness) is the side of an artistic form that we can mentally distinguish from the verbal structure.

The world of a literary work is the one recreated in the work through speech and with the participation of fiction. objectivity . The world of the work constitutes both “material” and “personal” reality, i.e. includes not only material reality, but also human consciousness.

The world of a work is a system that is somehow correlated with the real world: it includes people, with their external and internal (psychological characteristics), events, nature (living and inanimate), things, it has time and space. Subjective visualization is characteristic of all types of literature, but it is most developed and most autonomous (and therefore most easily distinguished) in epic and drama, where there is a system of characters and a plot.

The world of the work is artistically mastered And transformed reality.

THE INNER WORLD OF A WORK OF ART

D.S. Likhachev. The inner world of a work of art // Questions of literature, No. 8, 1968. – pp. 74-87

“The inner world of a work of verbal art (literary or folklore) has a certain artistic integrity. The individual elements of reflected reality are connected with each other in this inner world in a certain system, artistic unity.

Every work of art (if it is only artistic!) reflects the world of reality in your creative ways. And these angles are subject to comprehensive study in connection with the specifics of the work of art and, above all, in their artistic whole. When studying the reflection of reality in a work of art, we should not limit ourselves to the question: “true or false” - and admire only fidelity, accuracy, correctness. The inner world of a work of art also has its own interconnected patterns, its own dimensions and its own meaning, like a system.

Of course, and this is very important, the inner world of a work of art does not exist on its own and not for itself. It is not autonomous. It depends on reality, “reflects” the world of reality, but the transformation of this world that a work of art allows is holistic and purposeful. Transformation of reality associated with the idea of ​​the work, with the tasks that the artist sets for himself. The world of a work of art is the result of both a correct reflection and an active transformation of reality. In his work, the writer creates a certain space in which the action takes place. This space can be large, covering a series of strange travel stories or even extending beyond the terrestrial planet (in fantasy and romantic novels), but it can also narrow down to the tight confines of a single room. The space created by the author in his work may have unique “geographical” properties, be real (as in a chronicle or historical novel) or imaginary, as in a fairy tale. The writer in his work also creates the time in which the action of the work takes place. The work may cover centuries or just hours. Time in a work can move quickly or slowly, intermittently or continuously, be intensely filled with events or flow lazily and remain “empty,” rarely “populated” with events.

Works may also have their own psychological world, not the psychology of individual characters, but general laws of psychology that subordinate all characters, creating a “psychological environment” in which the plot unfolds. These laws may be different from the laws of psychology that exist in reality, and it is useless to look for exact correspondences in psychology textbooks or psychiatry textbooks. Thus, fairy tale heroes have their own psychology: people and animals, as well as fantastic creatures. They are characterized by a special type of reaction to external events, special argumentation and special responses to the arguments of antagonists. One psychology is characteristic of the heroes of Goncharov, another - of the characters of Proust, another - of Kafka, a very special one - of the characters of the chronicle or the lives of saints. The psychology of Karamzin's historical characters or Lermontov's romantic heroes is also special. All these psychological worlds must be studied as a whole.

The inner world of a work of verbal art (literary or folklore) has a certain artistic integrity. The individual elements of reflected reality are connected to each other in this inner world in a certain system, artistic unity.

When studying the reflection of the world of reality in the world of a work of art, literary scholars limit themselves for the most part to paying attention to whether individual phenomena of reality are correctly or incorrectly depicted in the work. Literary scholars enlist the help of historians to determine the accuracy of the depiction of historical events, psychologists and even psychiatrists to determine the accuracy of the depiction of the mental life of the characters. When studying ancient Russian literature, in addition to historians, we often turn to the help of geographers, zoologists, astronomers, etc. And all this, of course, is quite correct, but, alas, not enough. We usually do not study the inner world of a work of art as a whole, limiting ourselves to the search for “prototypes”: prototypes of a particular character, character, landscape, even “prototypes”, events and prototypes of the types themselves. Everything is “retail”, everything is in parts! The world of a work of art therefore appears scattered in our research, and its relationship to reality is fragmented and lacks integrity.

At the same time, the mistake of literary critics who note various “faithfulness” or “incorrectness” in the artist’s depiction of reality lies in the fact that, dividing the integral reality and the integral world of a work of art, they make both incommensurable: they measure the apartment area in light years.

True, it has become standard to point out the difference between a real fact and an artistic fact. We can encounter such statements when studying “War and Peace” or Russian epics and historical songs. The difference between the world of reality and the world of a work of art is already realized with sufficient acuteness. But the point is not to “be aware” of something, but also to define this “something” as an object of study.

In fact, it is necessary not only to state the very fact of differences, but also to study what these differences consist of, what causes them and how they organize the inner world of the work. We should not simply establish differences between reality and the world of a work of art and see only in these differences the specificity of a work of art. The specificity of a work of art by individual authors or literary movements can sometimes consist in just the opposite, that is, in the fact that there will be too few of these differences in individual parts of the inner world, and too much imitation and accurate reproduction of reality

In historical source studies, the study of a historical source was once limited to the question: true or false? After A. Shakhmatov’s works on the history of chronicle writing, such a study of the source was considered insufficient. A. Shakhmatov studied the historical source as an integral monument from the point of view of how this monument transforms reality: the purposefulness of the source, the worldview and political views of the author. Thanks to this, it became possible to use even a distorted, transformed image of reality as historical evidence. This transformation itself has become important evidence in the history of ideology and social thought. The historical concepts of the chronicler, no matter how they distort reality (and there are no concepts in the chronicle that do not distort reality), are always interesting for the historian, testifying to the historical ideas of the chronicler, his ideas and views on the world. The concept of the chronicler itself became historical evidence. A. Shakhmatov made all the sources more or less important and interesting for the modern historian, and we have no right to reject any source. It is only important to understand about what time the source being studied can give its testimony: whether about the time when it was compiled, or about the time about which it writes.

The situation is similar in literary criticism. Each work of art (if it is only artistic!) reflects the world of reality from its own creative perspective. And these angles are subject to comprehensive study in connection with the specifics of the work of art and, above all, in their artistic whole. When studying the reflection of reality in a work of art, we should not limit ourselves to the question: “true or false” - and admire only fidelity, accuracy, correctness. The inner world of a work of art also has its own interconnected patterns, its own dimensions and its own meaning, like a system.

Of course, and this is very important, the inner world of a work of art does not exist on its own and not for itself. It is not autonomous. It depends on reality, “reflects” the world of reality, but the transformation of this world that a work of art allows is holistic and purposeful. The transformation of reality is connected with the idea of ​​the work, with the tasks that the artist sets for himself. The world of a work of art is the result of both a correct reflection and an active transformation of reality. In his work, the writer creates a certain space in which the action takes place. This space can be large, covering a series of strange travel stories or even extending beyond the terrestrial planet (in fantasy and romantic novels), but it can also narrow down to the tight confines of a single room. The space created by the author in his work may have unique “geographical” properties, be real (as in a chronicle or historical novel) or imaginary, as in a fairy tale. The writer in his work also creates the time in which the action of the work takes place. The work may cover centuries or just hours. Time in a work can move quickly or slowly, intermittently or continuously, be intensely filled with events or flow lazily and remain “empty,” rarely “populated” with events.

Quite a lot of works are devoted to the issue of artistic time in literature, although their authors often replace the study of the artistic time of a work with the study of the author’s views on the problem of time and compile simple collections of statements by writers about time, without noticing or not attaching importance to the fact that these statements may be in conflict with the artistic time that the writer himself creates in his work 1.

1 For literature on artistic time and artistic space, see: D. S. Likhachev, Poetics of Old Russian Literature, “Nauka”, L. 1967, pp. 213-214 and 357. Additionally I will indicate: Em. S t a i g s g, Die Zeit als Einbil-dungskraft des Dichters. Untersuchungen zu Gedichton Von Brentano, Goethe und Kcllor, Ziirich, 1939, 1953, 1963; H. W e i n r i s h, Tempus. Besprochene und crzahltc Welt, Stuttgart, 1964.

Works may also have their own psychological world, not the psychology of individual characters, but general laws of psychology that subordinate all characters, creating a “psychological environment” in which the plot unfolds. These laws may be different from the laws of psychology that exist in reality, and it is useless to look for exact correspondences in psychology textbooks or psychiatry textbooks. Thus, fairy tale heroes have their own psychology: people and animals, as well as fantastic creatures. They are characterized by a special type of reaction to external events, special argumentation and special responses to the arguments of antagonists. One psychology is characteristic of the heroes of Goncharov, another - of the characters of Proust, another - of Kafka, a very special one - of the characters of the chronicle or the lives of saints. The psychology of Karamzin's historical characters or Lermontov's romantic heroes is also special. All these psychological worlds must be studied as a whole.

The same should be said about the social structure of the world of artistic works, and this social structure of the artistic world of the work should be distinguished from the author’s views on social issues and not confuse the study of this world with scattered comparisons of it with the world of reality. The world of social relations in a work of art also requires study in its integrity and independence.

You can also study the world of history in some literary works: in the chronicle, in the tragedy of classicism, in historical novels of realistic directions, etc. And in this area you will discover not only accurate or inaccurate reproductions of the events of real history, but also your own laws according to which historical events, its own system of causality or “causelessness” of events - in a word, its own... inner world of history. The task of studying this world of the history of a work is as different from studying a writer’s views on history as the study of artistic time is different from studying an artist’s views on time. You can study Tolstoy's historical views as they are expressed in the famous historical digressions of his novel War and Peace, but you can also study how events unfold in War and Peace. These are two different tasks, although interrelated. However, I think that the last task is more important, and the first serves only as an aid (by no means a primary one) for the second. If Leo Tolstoy had been a historian and not a novelist, perhaps these two tasks would have changed places in terms of their significance. By the way, there is a curious pattern that emerges when studying the difference between writers’ views on history and its artistic depiction. As a historian (in his discussions on historical topics), the writer very often emphasizes the regularity of the historical process, but in his artistic practice he involuntarily highlights the role of chance in the fate of the historical and simple characters of his work. Let me remind you of the role of the hare sheepskin coat in the fate of Grinev and Pugachev in Pushkin’s “The Captain’s Daughter”. Pushkin the historian hardly agreed with Pushkin the artist on this.

The moral side of the world of a work of art is also very important and, like everything else in this world, has a direct “constructive” meaning. So, for example, the world of medieval works knows absolute good, but evil in it is relative. Therefore, a saint cannot not only become a villain, but even commit a bad act. If he had done this, then he would not have been a saint from a medieval point of view, then he would only have been pretending, being a hypocrite, biding his time, etc., etc. But any villain in the world of medieval works can change dramatically and become a saint. Hence a kind of asymmetry and “unidirectionality” of the moral world of artistic works of the Middle Ages. This determines the originality of the action, the construction of plots (in particular, the lives of saints), the interested expectation of the reader of medieval works, etc. (the psychology of reader interest - the reader’s “expectation” of a continuation).

The moral world of works of art is constantly changing with the development of literature. Attempts to justify evil, to find objective reasons for it, to consider evil as a social or religious protest are characteristic of the works of the romantic movement (Byron, Njegos, Lermontov, etc.). In classicism, evil and good seem to stand above the world and acquire a unique historical coloring. In realism, moral problems permeate everyday life and appear in thousands of aspects, among which social aspects steadily increase as realism develops. Etc.

The building materials for constructing the inner world of a work of art are taken from the reality surrounding the artist, but he creates his own world in accordance with his ideas about what this world was, is or should be.

The world of a work of art reflects reality both indirectly and directly: indirectly - through the artist’s vision, through his artistic representations, and directly, directly in those cases when the artist unconsciously, without attaching artistic significance to this, transfers phenomena of reality or ideas and concepts into the world he creates. of his era.

I will give an example from the field of artistic time created in a literary work. This time of a work of art, as I have already said, can flow very quickly, “in jerks”, “nervously” (in Dostoevsky’s novels) or flow slowly and evenly (in Goncharov or Turgenev), be associated with “eternity” (in ancient Russian chronicles), capture a larger or smaller range of phenomena. In all these cases, we are dealing with artistic time - time that indirectly reproduces real time, artistically transforming it. If a writer of modern times, like us, divides the day into 24 hours, and a chronicler, in accordance with church services, into 9, then there is no artistic “assignment” or meaning in this. This is a direct reflection of the contemporary time calculation of the writer, which was transferred without changes from reality. What is important for us, of course, is the first, artistically transformed time.

It is this that gives the opportunity for creativity, creates the “maneuverability” necessary for the artist, allows him to create his own world, different from the world of another work, another writer, another literary movement, style, etc.

The world of a work of art reproduces reality in a kind of “abbreviated”, conventional version. An artist, building his world, cannot, of course, reproduce reality with the same degree of complexity inherent in reality. In the world of a literary work there is not much that exists in the real world. This is a limited world in its own way. Literature takes only some phenomena of reality and then conventionally shortens or expands them, makes them more colorful or more faded, organizes them stylistically, but at the same time, as already said, creates its own system, an internally closed system and having its own laws.

Literature “replays” reality. This “replaying” occurs in connection with those “style-forming” trends that characterize the work of this or that author, this or that literary movement or “style of the era.” These style-forming tendencies make the world of a work of art in some respects more diverse and richer than the world of reality, despite all its conventional abbreviation.

§ 1. MEANING OF THE TERM