LXXVII issue

T.G. DISTILLER

About the language and style of the story by A.I. Solzhenitsyn
"ONE DAY OF IVAN DENISOVICH"

Stylistic and linguistic skills of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, noted for its rare originality, cannot fail to attract the attention of linguists. And the paradoxical nature of the negative attitude of many readers obliges them to characterize the language and style of at least one of the works of this author, based primarily on facts.

By no means for everyone who undertakes to judge the merits and demerits of the language of a work of art, the closest connection and interdependence of style techniques and speech means in which these techniques are embodied are clear in their entirety. Analyzing from this point of view the story “One Day Ivan Denisovich”, It is necessary to show the exact, consistent motivation and internal unity of its verbal-figurative composition, in which, as LN said. Tolstoy, “the only possible order of the only possible words” is a sign of true artistry.

<От чьего лица ведется повествование? Роль несобственно-прямой речи>

Solzhenitsyn set himself a difficult stylistic task. Having merged the image of the author and the hero, he was obliged to create a completely clearly outlined speech mask that would combine: 1) the individual characteristics of the hero's speech in accordance with his character, 2) broader signs of his native Tegmenev dialect (or rather, common features dialectal-vernacular "speaking", characteristic of the modern peasant) and 3) the verbal coloring of the environment surrounding him in prison. In the latter, it was also impossible to forget about the individualization of the speech of all other characters in the story, even if shown through the one-sided perception of the hero. The difficulty of the synthetic use of these heterogeneous and different-scale speech layers also consisted in the fact that, according to the author's intention, they should have been enclosed not in a more natural form of narration from the first person - the person of the narrator - in the "fairy tale" manner, but in the syntactic structure of improperly direct speech :

“Shukhov walked along the path and saw a piece of a steel hacksaw in the snow, a piece of a broken piece of linen. Although such a piece was not determined for any need for him, however, you do not know your needs in advance. I picked it up and put it in my trousers pocket. Hide it at the CHP. The hoarder is better than the rich. "

An improperly direct speech often, but used in different ways in literature, opens up great characterological possibilities. In this case, it gives the author greater freedom, grounds for greater (in comparison with direct speech) objectification of what is depicted. Another consistent step in this direction - and in some episodes there is a direct conclusion of the narrative from the "author's Shukhov's" into the "author's Solzhenitsyn's" speech:

“And close to them sat at the table, Cavtorang Buinovsky ... he also occupied now an illegal seat here and interfered with the newly arriving brigades, like those whom he expelled five minutes ago with his metallic voice. He was recently in the camp, recently in general work. Such minutes as now were (he did not know this) especially important minutes for him, transforming him from an imperious, ringing naval officer into a sedentary, circumspect prisoner, only by this inactivity and able to overcome the twenty-five years in prison that had been opened for him. "

Having shifted the boundaries of Shukhov's sense of life, the author received the right to see what his hero could not see. For Solzhenitsyn, this was necessary, for example, with a fleeting (but therefore no less significant) touch to the spiritual world of the camp intelligentsia in those cases when it should be freed from the slightly condescending smile of a purely "earthly" person - the peasant Shukhov, i.e. when it comes to things that are, so to speak, outside Shukhov's competence:

“And Vdovushkin wrote his own. He really did work on the “leftist”, but incomprehensible for Shukhov. He was rewriting a new long poem, which he had finished yesterday, and today he promised to show it to Stepan Grigorievich, that very doctor, a champion of occupational therapy. "

As you can see, the barely outlined compositional-stylistic movement immediately expands the thematic, and, consequently, figurative and linguistic spheres of the story. "Imperious, sonorous naval officer", "occupational therapy", a difficult "Tolstoy" syntactic period: "such minutes were (he did not know this) especially important", etc. - all this already goes beyond the speech mask of the protagonist.

But the ratio of the author's and direct speech plans (if improperly direct speech is taken as a starting point) can be shifted in the opposite direction. Such a reverse shift is the direct collision of indirect and direct speech within one sentence, period, sometimes more broadly - episode:

“Like a tail (columns of prisoners. - T.V.) dumped on the hill, and Shukhov saw: to the right of them, far away in the steppe still blackened a column, she walked our the column is twisted and, probably, having seen, she also started up. This convoy could only be a mechanical plant ...

Dorbed our the column to the street, and the Mekhzavodskaya one disappeared behind the residential quarter ... we they should be squeezed! "

Here there is that higher stage in the merging of the hero and the author, which gives him the opportunity to especially persistently emphasize their empathy, again and again to remind of his direct involvement in the events depicted. The emotional effect of this merger is extremely effective: it reveals an additional acuity, the utmost nakedness of ironic bitterness, with which, for example, this episode describes a terrible "cross" of weather-beaten, frozen, starving prisoners overtaking each other. At the finish of the cross - not a cup, but a scoop ... A scoop of gruel, which is now for the prisoner " more expensive than will, dearer than life, all past and all future life. "

Another stylistic shift achieves no less expressiveness - the direct transmission of direct speech against the general background of improperly direct. The direct speech of other characters is expressively and stylistically interpreted by Shukhov's speech frame:

“Shukhov is laying (bricks. - T.V.), puts and listens:

- What are you? - Der screams, sprinkles with saliva.- It doesn't smell like a punishment cell! This is a criminal case. Tyurin! You will get the third term!

Wow, how the foreman's face is twisted! Ka-ak will throw the trowel at your feet! And to Der - a step! Der looked around - Pavlo was swinging a shovel ... Der blinked, worried, looking where the fifth corner is.

The foreman leaned over to Der and quietly so completely, but clearly here above:

- Your time, infection, time to give has passed. If you say a word, bloodsucker, - you live the last day, remember!

Shakes the foreman all over. It shakes, it won't calm down in any way. "

This shift takes on a special coloring where, with its help, the author collides the psychological results of opposite life experiences. Here, the so-called defamiliarisation technique is sometimes used, which allows you to see things from a new and unexpected side. It is to them that Solzhenitsyn conveys, for example, Shukhov's good-natured, ironic attitude to the interests of Caesar and his interlocutors, to their, in Shukhov's opinion, incomprehensible and somehow fake "outside the zone" world:

“Caesar smiled at Shukhov and immediately with an eccentric in glasses, who read the entire newspaper in line:

- Aah! Petr Mikhalych!

And - bloomed to each other like poppies. That weirdo:

- And I have a "Evening", fresh, look! They sent it by a parcel post.

- Yah? - And Caesar pokes into the same newspaper. And under the ceiling there is a blind-blind light bulb, what can you make out in small letters there?

- Here is an interesting review of Zavadsky's premiere! ..

They, Muscovites, can smell each other from afar, like dogs. And, having come together, everyone sniffs, sniffs in their own way. And they babble quickly, quickly, who will say more words. And when they babble like that, so rarely Russian words come across, listening to them is just the same as Latvians or Romanians ”.

It is in the ratio and proportions of all these methods of "speech", thanks to which Solzhenitsyn always knows how to show exactly as much as necessary, and exactly as needed for his artistic conception, and lies the "new brilliance of the old technique", noted by modern criticism.

<Разговорная основа стиля>

Stylistically impeccably executed interweaving of direct, improperly direct and indirect speech is superimposed on the "spoken" speech outline common for the whole story. And this defines another interesting feature of Solzhenitsyn's narrative style. The most detailed description of each (seemingly insignificant, but actually performed) deep meaning) the events do not slow down, as one would expect, the pace of the story. Likewise, the rhythm (and the rhythm of the story is unusually interesting and symbolic) does not become too monotonous and measured from this. The characteristic features of colloquial speech allow the combination of this detailing with the expressive swiftness of a chopped phrase, with an abundance of emotionally colored interrogative and exclamatory figures, with syntactic repetitions, with extraordinary expressiveness introductory words and turns, with a peculiar order of words, with the contamination of sentences of different syntactic structure, etc.

The element of colloquial speech in Solzhenitsyn's work is generally a separate, large problem, in the study of which it is necessary to consider in detail each of the listed (as well as a number of others) phenomena. At the same time, most of them can be shown on any piece of the text of the story. Let us take, for example, Shukhov's arguments about the prisoner's duma (“The prison’s Duma is also not free, everything is also returning, everything is stirring again: will they find a ration in the mattress? Will they be released in the medical unit in the evening? How did Caesar get his warm linen on his hands? Probably, he greased his personal belongings in the storeroom, where did he come from? ") or about how to distribute the bread (" Here's four hundred bread, but two hundred, but there are at least two hundred in the mattress. And that's enough. Two hundred now press, tomorrow morning to whip five hundred, take four hundred to work - zhituha! "), will we take other separate phrases (" it was not the medical unit that beckoned him now - but how else to add to dinner? ";" Caesar is rich, twice a month send , he shoved everyone who needed it, and he works as an idiot in the office ... ”and so on), - in all these examples, a concentrated colloquial intonation prevails, which is in perfect harmony with the appearance of the narrator. It is she who creates the atmosphere of "external simplicity and natural simplicity" characteristic of the story. (A. Tvardovsky), which, of course, did not arise by itself, but as a realization of the artist's brilliant stylistic and linguistic instinct.

<Преобладание общелитературной лексики>

So, the "only possible" verbal order for a story is that syntactic-stylistic structure, which has developed as a result of a kind of use of the related possibilities of the tale, shifts in the author's and direct utterance, and the peculiarities of colloquial speech. It corresponds in the best way to her ideological plot and compositional principles. And, obviously, he, in turn, is the same the best way must correspond to "the only possible words", which, as we will see later, really constitutes one of the most interesting artistic aspects of the story.

But it is precisely these words, "the only possible" both objectively and subjectively, that raise doubts and sometimes direct indignation of the purist-minded part of the reader's public, whose representatives are not very concerned about how lexical selection is related to the general artistic concept of the work. Meanwhile, only a serious and, most importantly, unbiased attitude towards the story itself, and towards the expressive means of artistic speech, and towards the Russian language in general can contribute to the formation of an objective view of the subject.

As mentioned above, the language of the story "One Day in Ivan Denisovich" is multifaceted, and these plans are subtly, sometimes barely perceptibly intertwined. However, from the lexical point of view, its constituent elements stand out more or less clearly.

The main lexical layer is the words of general literary speech, although at first glance it may seem different. But it cannot be otherwise. We know quite a few writers in the history of Russian literature who are characterized by an "extra-literary" form of linguistic use. Let us recall at least Gogol and Leskov, and in Soviet literature - early Leonov, Babel, Zoshchenko. But always, for any (dialectal, vernacular, slang) orientation in the stylization of speech, the literary language serves as a reference point as a neutral background. Written entirely in jargon, dialect, etc. a work cannot become a national artistic property.

In the story "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" dialectal and slang vocabulary plays the traditional role of the most striking stylistic speech means. The quantitative proportionality of this vocabulary with the literary vocabulary is quite clear in favor of the latter. True, only the quantitative predominance still does not say anything about the place of literary vocabulary in the story, since it is neutral and, therefore, hardly noticeable in comparison with the "colored" extra-literary words. But if we just once again turn the reader's gaze to any excerpt from the story taken at random, we will see that the author does not only create the expressive speech of the hero and his entourage with some extraordinary vocabulary "exoticism", but mainly with skillfully used means of general literary vocabulary, layering, as we have already said, on the colloquially vernacular syntactic structure:

“More and more bones were coming from the small fish, the meat from the bones was cooked, fell apart, only on the head and on the tail was kept. Leaving no scales or meat on the fragile mesh of the fish skeleton, Shukhov was still crushing his teeth, sucking out the skeleton - and spitting it out on the table. In any fish, he ate everything, even the gills, even the tail, and the eyes, when they came across on the spot, and when they fell out and swam in a bowl separately - large, fish eyes - did not eat. They laughed at him for that. "

Or: “Convicts are scurrying around at all ends! At one time, the head of the camp still issued such an order: no prisoners can walk around the zone alone. And where you can - lead the whole brigade in one formation. And where the whole brigade does not need to at once - say, to the medical unit or to the restroom - then put together groups of four or five people, and appoint the eldest of them, and so that he would lead his own lines there, and there he waited, and back - also in line ” ...

The murderous sarcasm of this last passage, for example, is exacerbated precisely by the emphasized neutrality of verbal selection, which further "defuses" the meaninglessness and stupidity of the camp order depicted. The new colloquially "fighting" phraseological unit "to put together groups" only aggravates the everyday "efficiency" of the explanation made, as it were, in passing.

In the third, fourth, etc. the passage we have taken is a similar phenomenon: non-literary words do not determine the general lexical composition of the story.

<Диалектные и просторечные формы в языке повести>

The second layer of vocabulary, very important for Solzhenitsyn, is dialectal vocabulary. By making the peasant the central hero of his story and "entrusting" him with the author's function, Solzhenitsyn managed to create an extremely expressive and unconventional dialectal characteristic of his speech, which categorically excluded for all modern literature the effectiveness of returning to the well-worn repertoire of "folk" speech signs wandering from work to work ( type aposlya, hope, dear, look-kos etc.).

For the most part, this dialectal characteristic is not even formed at the actual lexical expense. (chalabuda, ice, gonyavy, uhaydakatsya), and due to word formation: shelter, lack, hurried, satisfied, able to, unencumbered. Such a way of introducing dialectisms to the artistic speech sphere usually evokes a deservedly approving assessment from critics, since it renews the usual associative connections of a word and an image.

In the same vein lies the use of not specifically dialectal, but generally vernacular vocabulary. In the speech of the modern peasantry, both are practically inseparable from each other. And do such, suppose, words ascend perfumed, shitty, catch up, self-thought and others, to some particular dialect and that is why they are used or they are perceived in their common vernacular qualities - for the speech characteristics of Ivan Denisovich it is absolutely not important. It is important that with the help of both the first and the second, the hero's speech gets the necessary emotional and stylistic coloring. We hear lively, free from the standard that was easily acquired in recent times in various dubious fields, generous with humor, observant folk speech. Solzhenitsyn knows it very well and is sensitive to the slightest new shades in it. It is interesting, for example, in this sense, Shukhov's use of the verb insure in one of the new (production and sports) meanings - to protect, to ensure the safety of the action: “Shukhov ... insured from below, so as not to drop it. " Or the contracted use of one of the meanings of the verb consist, which could enter into folk speech only in our time: “Someone brought stencils from the war, and since then it has gone, gone, and more and more such dyes are being typed: nowhere do not consist, do not work anywhere ... ".

Knowledge folk speech gave the writer a difficult life experience, and, without any doubt, an active professional interest, which prompted him not only to observe, but also to specially study the Russian language.

As shown by the comparison of the main circle of extra-literary vocabulary used in the story, with the data of the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language" by V.I. Dahl, Solzhenitsyn, striving first of all for the reliability of verbal selection, verified every word borrowed not from his own, personal vocabulary, but from the outside. Moreover, the purpose for which Solzhenitsyn studied Dahl's dictionary was precisely to verify the actual existence of the word he heard, its meaning, and not to find the word "weirder". This is convincingly evidenced by the fact that the dialectal and everyday vernacular vocabulary in Solzhenitsyn, as a rule, is not identical to the corresponding words in Dal, but only similar to them. For example, dobolki, chilly, zhryastok- in the story; addon(only in units), chilly, stupid- at Dahl.

Maybe just because the elements of folk speech are given by Solzhenitsyn unconventionally, some readers (tempered with verbal cliches, smartly depicting broken "grandfathers" and backward old women) his author's manner seems "overly stylized." The point, however, lies only in the desire or unwillingness to recognize the writer's right to originality in the true sense of the word.

<Использование тюремного жаргона>

Another of the lexical layers, on the totality of which the verbal backbone of the story is built, are individual words and phrases (very few - about 40 words) of prison jargon. Solzhenitsyn uses them exceptionally tactfully, with a sense of "proportionality and conformity."

The complete absence of these words in the story would infect her with one of those petty lies, which in the end form a big lie that fundamentally undermines the artistic credibility of a literary work. Is it possible to portray a camp without using camp expressions, especially since the camp camp is being told about the camp? Is it really possible to replace, as one of the Moscow readers suggests, "thieves" words that cut the ears of bashful guardians of morality with others - "decent"?

If you take this dubious path, then instead of the word parasha have to write something like toilet barrel; instead of bastards- also something "immaculately gentle", for example, bad people. V the latter case the overseer's speech will look like this: “Nothing, bad people, they don't know how to do and don't want to. The bread is not worth what they are given "...

Those who find such a text very “beautiful” are unlikely to care about the authenticity and vitality of the artistic narration.

But even if we discard these deliberately taken extremes and substitute not cutesy expressions, but "average", neutral words (for example, instead of a pair schmon– hustle let's take a couple search– to search), will this give a full-fledged artistic result? Of course not, and not only because the "local flavor" will be lost. After all, there is an immeasurably greater gulf between "shmon" and "search" than the usual stylistic difference. Shmon is not just a search, an unpleasant, but nevertheless, logical procedure. Shmon is a legalized bullying, painful both morally and physically:

“In late autumn, the earth was already cold, everyone shouted to them:

- Take off your shoes, mechanic! Get your shoes in hand!

So they went barefoot. And now, frost, not frost, poke at choice:

- Come on, take off your right felt boot! And you - take off the left one! The zek will take off the felt boot and must, while jumping on one leg, overturn that felt boot and shake it with a footcloth ... ”.

That's what "shmon" is. And hardly any replacement will be successful here, not to mention the fact that there is no logical basis for it at all. The arguments put forward by the supporters of such a "replacement" cannot be considered justified.

One of the arguments is the “comprehensibility” criterion. “The words of the prison are incomprehensible, nobody knows them,” say some readers. But this is not the case. Firstly, because many words (or, rather, the meanings of words), jargon from time immemorial, are widely known and are often used far beyond prison walls and camp gates ( knock in the meaning of 'inform', wash away, reach– goner, stash, darken and etc.). The vocabulary belonging to the prison jargon proper cannot always be separated from the general vulgar vernacular speech element, since both are mobile and are in a state of constant mutual supplementation.

Secondly, the author comments on certain words of prison jargon, sometimes in the text, sometimes with a direct footnote (godfather, drill). The meaning of some of them is revealed with sufficient clarity by the context itself, without special explanations. In particular, this also applies to abbreviations (gulag, prisoner). Complicated and simple abbreviated words are absolutely clear - nachkar, opera. Prison phraseology is also very transparent - to swing the rights, poke on the paw, poison the vigilance, from bell to bell.

Thirdly, it is not clear which reader should be guided by the author of the work in order to be sure that all the words he uses are known to everyone who wants to read his book.

There are different readers, with different cultures and backgrounds, with different individual vocabulary. And an increase in this vocabulary after meeting with the next work fiction undoubtedly, it will only prove useful, because after all, not "all that is nonsense that Mitrofanushka does not know."

The second argument, following which it is necessary to cleanse the story from prison and in general from vulgar, sometimes downright abusive words, contains a falsely understood criterion of "morality." Here we are talking not about the little-known, but, on the contrary, very well for everyone. famous words, the awareness of which is considered necessary to hide. And the protest against their artistically justified use in the story is associated with nothing more than the sanctimonious notions that "art exists not for comprehending life, not for expanding views, but for ape imitation" 10.

Real art is above all truth. Truth in big and small. The truth is in the details. In this sense, there are no pseudoethical norms for the language of a work of art, there are no Pharisaic rules of what is allowed and what is not. It all depends on why this or that speech means is used in literature.

A recurrence of the darkest dogmatism would now be the assertion that literature should not depict the negative aspects of our reality at all. And if it should, then, naturally, by such artistic techniques that are brought into being by the requirements of aesthetically meaningful typification.

Thus, as long as prison jargon exists (and it will die by itself when crimes and prisons disappear), it is equally useless to turn a blind eye to its real existence and to object to its use in realistic fiction.

In the story "One Day in Ivan Denisovich" there is also that (representing a slightly different verbal category than those already mentioned) lexical circle, which always marks the work of the master. This is individual use of words and word formation. For Solzhenitsyn, it is most of all characterized by a complete and completely natural coincidence with the structural and expressive properties of folk speech that underlies his stylistics. Thanks to these qualities, Solzhenitsyn's word-creation is not at all perceived as a foreign stream in the general stream of very subtly differentiated - but at the same time mutually complementary and precisely by that creating a picture of exceptional image reliability - means of the common language.

In no particular case can we say with certainty that we have before us the words that the author of the story "took and invented." Moreover, it is unlikely that the author himself would dare to accurately determine the border between the created and the reproduced, so close and organic for him is the speech environment that he depicts as a member (and therefore, to some extent, the creator) of which he is. Therefore, the features of "proper Solzhenitsyn" and "improperly Solzhenitsyn", but they are selected words are the same. This is a renewed composition of the word, which greatly increases its emotional significance, expressive energy, and the freshness of its recognition. Even one example - underdog(instead of the usual cigarette butt) - speaks about all this at once and very clearly.

The same is the function of unusually dynamic, showing at once a whole complex of shades, in which the very nature of the action (tempo, rhythm, degree of intensity, psychological coloring) of verbal formations is manifested, for example: make up for(it is clever to be in time everywhere), finish, sniff out, dive in, shove(from the face with a rag), muddle up(fuss), to suck. They, like other "renewed" words and meanings of words, achieve a living contact with the text, imitating the immediacy of physical sensation. Here are some examples.

A visible and tangible image of the "comfort" of a prison canteen, concentrated in one word: fish bones from gruel are spit out directly onto the table, and then, when a whole mountain is gathered, they are brushed off, and they " grow up On the floor".

The highest degree of emotional saturation of the word, in which, as in a single burst of vague hope and melancholy, the whole camp people expresses itself at once: they are waiting for the storm. They are not taken to work in a blizzard. “- Eh, there are no storms for a long time! - the red-faced Latvian Kilgas sighed. - For the whole winter - not a snowstorm! What a winter ?!

- Yes ... blizzards ... blizzards ... - sighed brigade ".

The most categorical and economical characteristic of the degree of nutritional value of the lager ration: "porridge fatless", Where neither a neutral word-formative synonym (" low-fat "), nor a synonymous grammatical structure (" no fat ") will fully cover the expressive meaning of this word.

A very aptly expressed mixture of hatred and familiar contempt in the name of the overseer on duty: duty attendant.

They turn into unexpected expression:

1) the use of a forgotten original meaning of the word (for example, perishable‘Rotting, rotten’), which is now rarely used in all its other meanings: perishable small fish ";

2) a word usage that is simply unusual for this contextual situation: “before lunch - five hours. Lingering". The same thing - in a wonderful image of "boots with space";

3) uncommon forms of words, for example, gerunds waiting, spilling, which expand the range of comparative possibilities of the side effects they call with the main actions: “Ugh! - Shukhov got out into the dining room. And not waiting, until Pavlo tells him, - look for trays free behind the trays. " Here it is waiting cements the entire phrase, lining up Shukhov's actions in one time series and emphasizing their swiftness at a crucial moment: to break into the dining room with a fight, immediately get oriented and, even though it would be necessary to order the brigadier first, rush for trays, getting them in battles with prisoners from others brigades.

<Заключение. О сложности и простоте>

Here, only some forms of manifestation of a kind of interpretation by the author of the word-creation process are named. The rest of them should be studied in more detail later.

It is also necessary in the future to turn to the most traditional part of the analysis of the language of a work of art - to the observation of the special figurative-metaphorical speech means used by the writer.

The metaphorical structure of Solzhenitsyn's story is interesting in many respects: and by the effective use of the exclusivity of the verbal image that exists in the environment ( pea coat wooden- coffin), and a crudely humorous association underlying the author's trope ( road muzzle- a rag worn on the face to protect it from the wind), which is especially characteristic in metonymic finds (“And Shukhov realized that he had saved nothing: sucked him now eat that ration in the warmth"), And many others.

But the general stylistic orientation of the work is determined precisely by the author's extreme stinginess in using the figurative properties of the word. His stake in achieving the highest artistic goal is, as we could see, a stake on the opposite phenomenon - on the figurative weight of the original, direct meaning of the word in all its simplicity and ordinariness.

Thus, the complexity of the language of the story "One Day in Ivan Denisovich" is an imaginary complexity. The language of the story is simple. But simple with that refined and verified simplicity, which can really only be the result of complexity - the inevitable complexity of writing, if this work is honest, courageous and free.

It is no coincidence, therefore, that the calm and bitter quintessence of all that Ivan Denisovich tells us, the author concludes not in special, architectonically multi-component digressions, but in notes, unique in their capacious laconic and straightforward asceticism, made as if in passing:

"Work is like a stick, there are two ends in it: for people you do - give quality, for a fool you do - give a show"; “It seems that no one is offended, everyone is equally divided ... But to figure it out - we work for five days and eat for four days”; “How many times Shukhov noticed that the days in the camp are rolling, you won’t look back. And the term itself does not go at all, it does not decrease at all ”; “The law is inverted. If you run out of ten, they will say you have one more. Or link "; “There were three thousand six hundred fifty three such days in his period from bell to bell. Because of leap years- three extra days were added. "

The laconic result of the hero's gloomy reflections concentrated in these remarks is the stylistic key to the whole story, helping the reader to discover its exact truthfulness and unique expressiveness, which do not tolerate any language compromises in literature.

T. Motyleva... In disputes about the novel. "New World", 1963, no. 11, p. 225.

For example, how Shukhov is having supper ("having a hot drink from one bowl or the other ...") or putting on a rag (a travel muzzle), and so on.

The compositional principle of the story: intentional plotlessness; strictly consistent in time, uniform in careful detailing of diverse phenomena, description of the events of one day, the tragic scale of which grows in the mind of the reader, like the organism of a monstrous insect under a strong microscope. If it were not for this ruthless, as a witness testimony, rigor in reproducing the smallest everyday and psychological details of camp life, if it were not for the absolute artistic precision of the linguistic aim it conditioned - there would be no “own” turn of the idea in the story when depicting: the discreet, everyday courage of the people, who wanted to live when it was more natural to want to die; its harsh and wise purity, internally always opposing the lawlessness of unbridled power; his latent spiritual power, which allows a person to remain human in inhuman conditions; in a word, there would be no real, cruel truth, the more terrible, the simpler and more restrained it is depicted.

Cm.: V.V. Vinogradov... O fiction... M. - L., 1930, p. 50.

"Forms ... of" extra-literary "speech in fiction ... always have behind them, as a second plan of construction, the semantic system of the" general literary "language of a given era." (Ibid.)

Compare, for example, I. Guro's enthusiastic commentary on words such as slap, warming meadows, the first bird cherry in the prose of S. Sartakov ("Lit. Russia", December 27, 1963).

In his letter, as well as in several other letters received by the Institute of the Russian Language of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, dissatisfaction with the moral and aesthetic "illegibility" of Solzhenitsyn is expressed. At the same time, in the list of words that are recommended to be expelled from the story in order to "get a good thing", in the same row there are: shelter, satisfied, bastard, zek and etc.

“... The third disease, from which all sorts of doctors and healers are trying to cure the Russian language, is as imaginary as the first two.

I'm talking about the clogging of speech with supposedly obscene rudeness, which inspire such a superstitious, I would say, mystical fear to many adherents of the purity of the language.

This fear is completely vain, for our literature is one of the most chaste in the world. The deep seriousness of the tasks that it sets before itself excludes all sorts of lightweight, frivolous topics ...

But chastity is one thing, and cleanliness and stiffness is another ”( K.I. Chukovsky... As alive as life. M., 1963, p. 105-106).

L. Likhodeev... Claw. "Youth", 1964, No. 1.

Genre variety of journalism A.I. Solzhenitsyn 1970-1980s

Introduction

The creative path of the outstanding Russian writer and publicist A.I. Solzhenitsyn is inextricably linked with the history of Russia in the XX century. In the years when A.I. Solzhenitsyn turned to active artistic creation, for this he needed remarkable moral strength, since he had to go against the stream. Real life in the art of that time was replaced by ideologized mythologems. HELL. Sakharov named A.I. Solzhenitsyn's "giant of the struggle for human dignity in the modern tragic world." A witness and participant in the Russian history of the twentieth century A.I. Solzhenitsyn was himself. He graduated from the Physics and Mathematics Faculty of Rostov University and entered adulthood on June 22, 1941. Having received his diploma, he comes to exams at the Moscow Institute of History, Philosophy, Literature (MIFLI), on correspondence courses which he studied since 1939. The next session falls on the beginning of the war. In October, he was mobilized into the army, and soon entered the officer's school in Kostroma. In the summer of 1942, he received the rank of lieutenant, and at the end went to the front: A.I. Solzhenitsyn is in command of the sound battery in artillery reconnaissance. The military experience of A.I. Solzhenitsyn and the work of his sound battery are reflected in his military prose late 90s. (two-part story "Zhelyabugskie Vyselki" and the story "Adlig Schwenkitten" - "New World". 1999. No. 3). As an artillery officer, he goes from Orel to East Prussia, is awarded orders. Miraculously, he finds himself in the very places of East Prussia where General Samsonov's army passed. The tragic episode of 1914 - the Samson catastrophe - becomes the subject of the image in the first "Knot" of the "Red Wheel" - in "August the Fourteenth". February 9, 1945 Captain A.I. Solzhenitsyn is arrested at the command post of his chief, General Travkin, who, a year after his arrest, will give his former officer a characterization, where he will recall, without fear, all his merits - including the night withdrawal from the battery environment in January 1945, when the battles were going on already in Prussia. After the arrest - the camps: in New Jerusalem, in Moscow at the Kaluga outpost, in special prison No. 16 in the northern suburbs of Moscow (the same famous Marfinskaya sharashka, described in the novel In the First Circle, 1955-1968). Since 1949 - a camp in Ekibastuz (Kazakhstan). Since 1953 A.I. Solzhenitsyn is an "eternal exile settler" in a remote village of the Dzhambul region, on the edge of the desert. In 1957 - rehabilitation and a rural school in the village of Torfo-product not far from Ryazan, where he teaches and rents a room from Matryona Zakharova, who became the prototype of the famous mistress of Matryona's Dvor (1959). In 1959 A.I. Solzhenitsyn "in one gulp", in three weeks, creates the story "Shch-854", which, after much trouble by A.T. Tvardovsky and with the blessing of N.S. Khrushchev was published in "Novy Mir" (1962, No. 11) under the title "One Day in Ivan Denisovich".

Already by the time of the first publication of A.I. Solzhenitsyn has a serious writing experience behind him - about a decade and a half: “For twelve years I have been writing and writing calmly. Only on the thirteenth did he falter. It was the summer of 1960. Many things written, both with their complete hopelessness, and with complete obscurity, I began to feel overflow, I lost the lightness of design and movement. In the literary underground I began to lack air, ”wrote A.I. Solzhenitsyn in his autobiographical book "Butting a Calf with an Oak". It is in the literary underground that the novels "In the First Circle", several plays, the screenplay "Tanks Know the Truth!" Are created. Work has begun on The Gulag Archipelago, and a novel about the Russian revolution, codenamed R-17, has been comprehended, which was embodied decades later in the epic The Red Wheel. In the mid 60s. the novel "Cancer Ward" (1963-1967) and the novel "The First Circle" were created. They failed to publish them in Novy Mir, and both were published in 1968 in the West. At the same time, the previously begun work on the "Gulag Archipelago" (1958-1968; 1979) and the epic "Red Wheel" (intensive work on the great historical novel "R-17", which grew into the epic "Red Wheel", began in 1969). In 1979 A.I. Solzhenitsyn becomes a laureate Nobel Prize... The story of receiving the Nobel Prize is described in the chapter "Nobeliana" ("Butting a calf with an oak"). At the same time, his position in the USSR is deteriorating more and more: a principled and uncompromising ideological and literary position leads to expulsion from the Writers' Union (November 1969), a campaign of persecution of A.I. Solzhenitsyn. This forces him to give permission for the publication in Paris of the book "August the Fourteenth" (1971) - the first volume of the epic "Red Wheel". In 1973, the first volume of The Gulag Archipelago was published in the Parisian publishing house YMCA-PRESS.

Ideological opposition not only does not hide A.I. Solzhenitsyn, but it is also directly declared. He writes a number of open letters: Letter to the Fourth All-Union Congress of the Union of Soviet Writers (1967), Open Letter to the Secretariat of the Writers' Union of the RSFSR (1969), Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union (1973), which he sends by mail to addressees in the Central Committee of the CPSU , and without receiving an answer, distributes in samizdat. The writer creates a series of journalistic articles that are intended for the philosophical and journalistic collection "From under the boulders" ("On the return of breath and consciousness" (1973), "Repentance and self-restraint as a category of national life" (1973), "Education "(1974))," Live not by lies! " (1974).

In 1975, an autobiographical book was published "Butting a Calf with an Oak", which is a detailed story about creative way writer from the beginning of his literary activity to the second arrest and deportation and an outline of the literary environment and customs of the 60s - early 70s. In February 1974, at the height of the persecution unfolded in the Soviet press, A.I. Solzhenitsyn is arrested and imprisoned in the Lefortovo prison. But his incomparable authority among the world community does not allow the Soviet leadership to simply deal with the writer, so he is deprived of Soviet citizenship and deported from the USSR to the Federal Republic of Germany, which became the first country to accept the exile, he stayed with Heinrich Böll, after which he settled in Zurich (Switzerland). Life in the West is described in Solzhenitsyn's second autobiographical book, A Grain Between Two Millstones, which he began publishing in Novy Mir in 1998 and continued in 1999. In 1976, the writer and his family moved to America, to Vermont. Here he works on a complete collected works and continues his historical research, the results of which form the basis of the epic "The Red Wheel". A.I. Solzhenitsyn was always confident that he would return to Russia. Even in 1983, when the idea of ​​changing the socio-political situation in the USSR seemed incredible, the writer answered the question of a Western journalist about the hope of returning to Russia: “You know, in a strange way, I not only hope, I am internally convinced of this. I just live in this feeling: that I will definitely return during my lifetime. At the same time, I mean the return as a living person, and not in books, books, of course, will return. This contradicts all reasonable reasoning, I cannot say: for what objective reasons this can be, since I am no longer a young man. But after all, and often history goes so unexpectedly that we cannot foresee the simplest things. " Foresight of A.I. Solzhenitsyn came true: already at the end of the 80s. this return gradually began to take place. In 1988 A.I. USSR citizenship was returned to Solzhenitsyn, and in 1989 the Nobel lecture and chapters from the Gulag Archipelago were published in Novy Mir, followed by the novels In the First Circle and Cancer Ward in 1990. And in 1994 the writer returned to Russia. Since 1995, he has published a new cycle in Novy Mir - "two-part" stories.

The purpose and meaning of life of A.I. Solzhenitsyn lies in writing: “My life,” he said, “runs from morning to late evening at work. There are no exceptions, distractions, vacations, trips - in this sense, I really do what I was born for. " The scale of A.I. Solzhenitsyn is determined by his work not only in the field of fiction proper, but also in journalism. A.I. Solzhenitsyn always considered literature his main vocation, but it was journalism that allowed him to become a citizen of the world, gave him the opportunity to express his civil position... Largely thanks to his publicistic speeches, we can judge the evolution of thinking, the historical, socio-political, philosophical views of the writer. This fact, as well as the lesser degree of study of the writer's publicistic works in comparison with his own artistic work, determines relevance topics of thesis.

Object of this research are the publicistic speeches of A.I. Solzhenitsyn on social and political topics (articles, speeches, open letters, interviews) that had a significant impact on the public consciousness of the readership.

Item research - genre and style originality of A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

Target work - to reveal the originality of the journalism of A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

This goal defines the range of tasks:

1) Describe the publicistic speeches of A.I. Solzhenitsyn of the 1960s-1970s.

2) Reveal the originality of the genre of "open writing" as a form of expression of the ideological and aesthetic position of the writer.

3) Determine the features of the depiction of the theme of Russian emigration in the sketches of A.I. Solzhenitsyn's "A grain pleased between two millstones."

4) Consider the problems and structural principles of the genre of "lectures" and "speech" in the work of A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

5) Analyze the article "How can we equip Russia?" from the point of view of problems and ways of expressing the author's position.

Methodological basis of work became a systematic approach that combined the historical-functional and historical-literary aspects of the study of artistic and publicistic works.

The research materials can be used in the study of the history of Russian journalism of the XX century, which determines the practical significance of the thesis.

The main provisions for the defense:

Publicism occupies an important place in the work of A.I. Solzhenitsyn. It raises and, in accordance with the writer's convictions, resolves moral, socio-political, historical, and philosophical questions. The defining idea of ​​all journalism A.I. Solzhenitsyn was the idea of ​​abandoning a totalitarian system of government and a gradual transition to democratic foundations. It was journalism that made it possible for A.I. Solzhenitsyn to express his ideas for the transformation of our state.

A.I. Solzhenitsyn is distinguished by genre diversity. The leading genres are articles, letters, lectures, speeches, and proclamations. Letters from A.I. Solzhenitsyn ("Letter to the IV All-Union Congress of the Union of Soviet Writers" 1967, "Open Letter to the Secretariat of the Writers' Union of the RSFSR" 1969, "Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union" 1973) are open, addressed to the ruling authorities. The issue of the 1973 Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union concerns the issues of censorship, repression against writers, and the behavior of the leaders of the Writers' Union. The main pathos of the appeal to the leaders is the desire to awaken the national conscience and responsibility in the leaders of the country, who determine its fate. Two main proposals of A.I. Solzhenitsyn - the rejection of the Marxist-Leninist ideology and the end of the policy of physical and ideological expansionism. The 1973 "Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union" contains a program for reforming Soviet reality by the "leaders", a "recipe" for improving its fundamental principles.

As the hope of awakening patriotism and conscience in the "leaders" is lost, the desire to induce compatriots to a moral revolution, the essence of which is the refusal to support and share the official lies, grows. A.I. Solzhenitsyn's "To Live Not by Lies" sounded in a number of publicistic speeches of the writer and acquired a complete and polished form in the appeal "To Live Not by Lies". One of the main theses of A.I. Solzhenitsyn - the thesis of the coalescence of violence with lies. A.I. Solzhenitsyn owns keen feeling the need for freedom and truth, the key to liberation is "personal non-participation in lies!" The main pathos of the appeal: "Let the lie cover everything, let the lie own everything, but at the smallest we will restrain ourselves: let it not possess through me!"

The essays “A grain was pleased between two millstones” are strong with a look from the inside, where the vision of a participant in what is happening and a historian and a “chronicler” of emigration is combined. The writer is a researcher of the stages of the Russian diaspora. A.I. Solzhenitsyn raises important issues for emigrants related to everyday life, the choice of place of residence, the preservation of the Russian environment for their children, the Orthodox Christian faith. In "Zernyshka" A.I. Solzhenitsyn pays attention to émigré periodicals. He gives clear preference to magazines: "Chasovoy", "Nashi Vesti" and others, newspapers "Rul", "Vozrozhdenie", " Latest news”, Sympathizes with the surviving publications such as“ Voice of Zarubezhya ”, especially“ Posev ”,“ Grani ”,“ Continent ”,“ New Journal ”.

Aesthetic, moral, religious, historical views of A.I. Solzhenitsyn are also embodied in the genre of lectures ("Nobel Lecture" 1972, "Harvard Speech" 1978, "Templeton Lecture" 1983). The Templeton Lecture reveals the writer's idea of ​​the tasks of literature, of the role of the writer before God. A.I. Solzhenitsyn thinks of himself as a writer who "knows a higher power over himself and joyfully works as a little apprentice under the heaven of God." Writer, after A.I. Solzhenitsyn, is responsible for "everything written, drawn, for perceiving souls." In the "Nobel Lecture" A.I. Solzhenitsyn recognizes art and literature as the ability to transmit from people to people, from generation to generation, from soul to soul, the human experience accumulated over the centuries in order to free some from the need to repeat the mistakes of others. In defining the humanistic content of the tasks of art and literature, A.I. Solzhenitsyn is the heir to the Russian classics of the 19th century.

The ideas of A.I. Solzhenitsyn in his "Letter to the leaders of the Soviet Union" and the appeal "To live not by lies" are repeated in other publicistic speeches of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, taking shape in the strictly verified, hard-won program of A.I. Solzhenitsyn as a writer, publicist and citizen. It is based on the concept of Russia's peaceful development, ways to soften the authoritarian system of power. The article "How can we equip Russia?" - these are reflections on the fate of the country, its future.

The structure of the thesis due to the purpose and objectives of the study. The work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion and a bibliography.

1. Publicism A.I. Solzhenitsyn 1960-70s

1.1 The genre of "open writing" as a form of expression of ideological and literary position A.I. Solzhenitsyn

A.I. Solzhenitsyn once said that he was a publicist against his will: “I do it (journalism) against my will. If I had the opportunity to address compatriots on the radio, I would read my books, because in my journalism and in my interviews I cannot express even one hundredth of what is in my books. "

However, journalism did not just become an important part of his continuous sermon-confession, a laboratory for developing his concepts and working hypotheses. He is constantly moving in the field of journalistic out-of-the-box "feasible considerations." A.I. It is important for Solzhenitsyn at first to loudly "shout" some truth, to catch the echo, and only then to utter it, with amendments, "in an undertone." In any case, journalism for him is not at all "waste" of a huge shipyard, where his "ships" have been built for years and decades. Perhaps even the projects of these "ships - novels" arose from the theses and working hypotheses of his journalism.

Two volumes of the writer's journalism - in the famous collected works of the Parisian publishing house N.A. Struve - divided on the basis of chronology into two parts: "In the Soviet Union" (1969-1974) and "In the West" (1974-1980). This is a very multidimensional, multidimensional, but internally unified understanding of the changing world, a whole series of positions, even portraits of the writer in the midst of cold war... This journalism has caused a lot of aggressive attacks, irony against him, now and then "overwhelming" and prose. If, say, the position of A.D. Sakharov or V.S. Grossman in the "arrested" novel "Life and Fate" was accepted by one side - the liberal opposition - unconditionally, then the journalism of A.I. Solzhenitsyn often robbed him of his friends in the liberal camp.

With judgments about the journalistic work of A.I. We can get acquainted with Solzhenitsyn in the book by D. Shturman "To the City and the World". The first and most complete attempt to study the connection between literature and journalism was undertaken by E.A. Lazebnik "Publicism in Literature". About the biography of A.I. Solzhenitsyn's book is evidenced by L.I. Saraskina “Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The biography continues ... ". This is the book of a writer and a meticulous scientist who does not allow mistakes in facts, but leaves room for a personal relationship with his hero.

A.I. Solzhenitsyn as a linguistic personality is inextricably linked with the Russian literary tradition, and at the same time it is modern. The consonance with the twentieth century is due to the biography of a man, whose fate was not only directly connected with the abyss of tragedies of the past century, but also lifted him to the heights of literary and social fame. The writer is “sick” with Russia and knows the Western world. The theme of his work included both his own (private) destiny and common destinies. Publicism occupies an important place in the work of A.I. Solzhenitsyn. It poses and, in accordance with the convictions of the writer, resolves issues of moral, socio-political, historical, philosophical. The defining idea of ​​all journalism A.I. Solzhenitsyn was the idea of ​​abandoning a totalitarian system of government and a gradual transition to democratic foundations. It was journalism that made it possible for A.I. Solzhenitsyn to express his ideas for transforming our state, to debunk the Soviet mythology, to express his ethical and aesthetic concept. Essentially, A.I. Solzhenitsyn the publicist created a series of prophecies about the fate of freedom, about the continuing invasion of Russia, the whole world, democracy and monarchy, the terrible fire of revolutions, the irrational force of totalitarianism, the real "power of death."

A.I. Solzhenitsyn paved the way for the main channel of Russian journalism - the famous "letters" of P.Ya. Chaadaev, "Diary of a Writer" by F.M. Dostoevsky, "I Can't Be Silent" by L.N. Tolstoy, partly "Letters to the Neighbor" by M.O. Menshikov, journalism V.G. Korolenko.

A.I. Solzhenitsyn is distinguished by genre diversity. The leading genres are articles, letters, lectures, speeches, and proclamations.

Letters from A.I. Solzhenitsyn: "Letter to the IV All-Union Congress of the Union of Soviet Writers" (1967), "Open Letter to the Secretariat of the Writers' Union of the RSFSR" (1969), "Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union" (1973) are open, addressed to the ruling authorities ...

Open writing is a specific genre of public speaking in the press that has become widespread in the 20th century. The purpose of any open letter, including the analyzed one, is the ability to influence certain social processes or publicly significant, in the author's opinion, situations that worry him.

In "Letter to the IV All-Union Congress of the Union of Soviet Writers" (1967) A.I. Solzhenitsyn wants to "conscience" the decision-makers to whom it is addressed, to indirectly influence their decision by shaping the appropriate public opinion. Compositionally, the text consists of two parts. In the first part A.I. Solzhenitsyn talks about the general state of affairs in literature. The second part is devoted to the work of the writer himself. In the first part, "Letters" touches on several significant topics. First, censorship: “… that intolerable further oppression to which our fiction has been subjected from decade to decade by censorship and with which the Writers' Union can no longer reconcile. Not provided for by the constitution and therefore illegal, nowhere publicly named, censorship under the obscure name of Glavlita gravitates over our fiction and carries out the arbitrariness of literary-illiterate people over writers. A vestige of the Middle Ages, censorship is satisfying its Mafusail's terms almost into the 21st century! Perishable, it tries to appropriate for itself the lot of imperishable time: to select worthy books from unworthy ones. "

A.I. Solzhenitsyn expresses his deep regret that “... works that could express an urgent popular thought, timely and beneficially influence in the field of spiritual or development public conscience, - are prohibited or disfigured by censorship for petty, egoistic reasons, but short-sighted for the life of the people. Excellent manuscripts of young authors, who are not yet known to anyone, are being rejected today from the editorial offices just because they "will not pass." Many members of the Union and even delegates to this Congress know how they themselves did not get tired of censorship pressure and gave way in the structure and design of their books, replaced chapters, pages, paragraphs, phrases in them, supplied them with faded titles in order to see them in print. and thus irreparably distorted their content and their creative method. By an understandable property of literature, all these distortions are destructive for talented works and are completely insensitive for mediocre ones. It is the best part of our literature that comes into being in a distorted form. Our writers are not supposed, not recognized as having the right to express anticipatory judgments about the moral life of a person and society, to explain social problems or historical experience so deeply suffered in our country in their own way. ”In this step, A.I. Solzhenitsyn was not alone. Consent with him was attested by their signatures on a letter read by them in the hall of the Congress, a hundred members of the USSR Writers Union. Another no less important topic- repressions against writers: “Even Dostoevsky, the pride of world literature, was not published in our country at one time (it is not fully printed even now), was excluded from school curricula, made inaccessible for reading, reviled. How many years was Yesenin considered "counter-revolutionary" (and even prison sentences were given for his books)? Was not Mayakovsky also an "anarchist political hooligan"? For decades Akhmatova's unfading poems were considered "anti-Soviet". The first timid publication of the dazzling Tsvetaeva ten years ago was declared a "gross political mistake." Only with a delay of 20 and 30 years Bunin, Bulgakov, Platonov were returned to us, they inevitably stand in the line of Mandelstam, Voloshin, Gumilyov, Klyuev, one cannot avoid once "recognizing" both Zamyatin and Remizov. There is a decisive moment - the death of an unwanted writer, after which, soon or not soon, he is returned to us, accompanied by an "explanation of mistakes." How long ago it was impossible to pronounce Pasternak's name aloud, but now he died - and his books are published, and his poems are quoted even at ceremonies. "

A.I. Solzhenitsyn and the treacherous behavior of the leaders of the Writers' Union: “... the leadership of the Union faint-heartedly left in trouble those whose persecution ended in exile, camp and death (Pavel Vasiliev, Mandelstam, Artyom Vesyoly, Pilnyak, Babel, Tabidze, Zabolotsky and others). We are forced to cut off this list with the words “and others”: we learned after the 20th Party Congress that there were more than six hundred of them - innocent writers, whom the Union obediently gave them to the prison-camp fate. However, this scroll is even longer, its twisted end is not readable and will never be read by our eyes: it contains the names of such young prose writers and poets whom we could only accidentally recognize from personal meetings, whose talents died in the camps unbroken, whose works did not go beyond the state security offices of the times of Yagoda-Yezhov-Beria-Abakumov ”.

Having identified the main problems, then A.I. Solzhenitsyn expresses his proposals: "I propose to clearly formulate in paragraph 22 of the charter of the SSP all those guarantees of protection that the Union provides to its members who have been subjected to slander and unjust persecution, so that the repetition of lawlessness is impossible." Here A.I. Solzhenitsyn calls on the new leadership not to repeat the mistakes of the past: "The newly elected leadership of the Union has no historical need to share responsibility for the past with the old leadership."

In the first part of A.I. Solzhenitsyn provides convincing examples of the failure of the current system of government. In the second part of A.I. Solzhenitsyn speaks of the bans and persecutions he personally experienced. This part is divided into more particular aspects concerning individual episodes of the writer's work (about the taken away novel "In the First Circle" and the archive, about slandering the writer, and about the impossibility of answering it, about works that are inaccessible to the general reader, about the prohibition of communication with readers) and ends with a not very comforting conclusion: "So my work is finally drowned out, closed and slandered." At the end of the letter A.I. Solzhenitsyn asks the question: “With this gross violation my copyright and "other" rights - will the IV All-Union Congress undertake or will not undertake to protect me? " most likely unanswered, but in this question one hears: how much can you endure? How long can you be inactive? In conclusion A.I. Solzhenitsyn says that "No one can block the paths of truth, and I am ready to accept death for its movement." The letter ends with a question in which the author of the letter expresses the hope that the experience of the previous generation "... will teach us finally not to stop the writing of the writer during his lifetime?" In this letter A.I. Solzhenitsyn appears as a fighter, an accuser, ignorant of doubts and instructing fellow citizens with his word, which has become a public matter.

This letter was mailed to 250 addresses in mid-May 1967. One copy was brought personally by the author to the technical secretariat of the congress on May 16 and handed over against his receipt. The first publication took place in the newspaper "Monde" (Paris), 31.5.1967; later - a number of newspaper publications in different languages; in Russian - plural in the emigre press. At home, "Letter to the IV All-Union Congress of the Union of Soviet Writers" (1967) was first published 22 years later - in the magazine "Slovo" (Moscow), 1989, No. 8; in the magazine "Smena" (Moscow), 1989, No. 23.

The issue of "Letters to the Leaders of the Soviet Union" (1973) touches upon the issues of censorship, repression against writers, and the behavior of the leaders of the Writers' Union. The main pathos of the appeal to the leaders is the desire to awaken the national conscience and responsibility in the leaders of the country, who determine its fate. Two main proposals of A.I. Solzhenitsyn - the rejection of the Marxist-Leninist ideology and the end of the policy of physical and ideological expansionism. The "Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union" (1973) contains a program for reforming Soviet reality by the "leaders", a "recipe" for improving its fundamental principles. As the hope of awakening patriotism and conscience in the "leaders" is lost, the desire to induce compatriots to a moral revolution, the essence of which is the refusal to support and share the official lies, grows. Opponents of A.I. Solzhenitsyn was unanimously accused of being categorical, of the categorical nature of all his suggestions and assumptions, of feeling like a prophet, bringing into the world a revelation that remains above criticism - truth in its final and perfect form. Where did this false stereotype come from and why? Perhaps it is predetermined by the passionate tone of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, his oratorical skills, his tendency to repeatedly return to his leading ideas. But no one ever notes that caution, those doubts and hesitations that are associated even with the "Letter to the leaders of the Soviet Union."

On May 3, 1974 A.I. Solzhenitsyn says about the Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union in his Answers to Time magazine: places of this "Letter"), but they will offer a better, real, constructive way out. My proposals were put forward last year with very, very little hope, yes. But it was impossible not to try this advice. At one time, both Sakharov and Grigorenko, and others, with different justifications, offered the Soviet government peaceful ways of developing our country. This was always done not without hope - alas, never justified. Perhaps we can summarize: consistently and decisively rejecting all benevolent proposals, all reforms, all peaceful ways, the Soviet leaders will not be able to say that they did not know the situation, that they were not offered alternatives: by their stubborn inertness, they took responsibility for the most difficult options for the development of our country ”.

Again A.I. Solzhenitsyn refers to "Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union" in a television interview with CBS, Zurich, July 17, 1974. Interviewer Walter Cronkite asks the question that A.I. Solzhenitsyn will have to hear more than once: “- In the Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union, you express your preference for an authoritarian system, and from this arose criticism from various dissidents in the Soviet Union, as well as, perhaps, some disappointment on the part of liberals in the Western world. What can you say about this? "

My "Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union" was misunderstood in many ways. The point is that one cannot decide the question of an authoritarian system or a democratic one in general. Each country has its own history, its own traditions, its own capabilities. Never in history, how much the Earth is worth, has there been one system throughout the Earth, and I affirm - there never will be. Will always be different. My "Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union" only says that in today's conditions I do not see the forces of such and such paths that could lead Russia to democracy without a new revolution. I wrote in the preamble that if my proposals are unsuccessful, then I am ready to withdraw them at any moment, just let someone give me another practical way. The practical way - how can we get out of the situation in Russia? Today, without a revolution, and so that you can live. I turned to the leaders who will not surrender the power voluntarily, and I do not offer them: “give it up voluntarily!” - that would be utopian. I was looking for a way to see if we in Russia can find a way now to soften the authoritarian system, to leave the authoritarian one, but to soften it, to make it more humane. So: for Russia today, one more revolution would be more terrible than the last one than the 17th year, so many people will be cut out and the productive forces will be destroyed. In Russia, there is no other way out now, as I understand it. But this does not mean that I generally think that an authoritarian system should be everywhere, and it is better than a democratic one. "

Rereading the journalism of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, you are surprised at her consistency. From Letter to the Fourth Congress of Writers (1967) to Harvard Speech (1978), the same themes are revealed slowly, little by little, and everything in them is subject to a moral criterion. Hence the subordination of democracy to the moral goals of life, already felt in the Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union (1973) and thundering deafeningly at Harvard in 1978; hence the primacy of the nation over ideology - the line that began in the collection "From Under the Boulders" and ends with a sharp condemnation of the Russian liberals in February 1917 (in an interview from February 1979); and the denial of the moral right to emigrate for those who consider themselves Russian, appearing for the first time in a TV interview with the SI-BI-ES company (June 1974), clarified in an open letter to Pavel Litvinov (January 1975) and, finally, resulting in a furious accusatory speech (BBC Radio Interview, February 1979); and the regret that the West entered into an alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler, expressed in New York in July 1975 and clearly explained in May 1978. A.I. Solzhenitsyn takes the word only in his own way own decision and never in response to media challenges. In journalism A.I. Solzhenitsyn, in open letters and messages, the reader is faced with the image of a person who has straightened up in the struggle against the Soviet system and is not capable of compromising with it.

journalistic genre article solzhenitsyn

In many of his publicistic speeches, A.I. Solzhenitsyn seeks to comprehend the "categories of national life." The articles are devoted to these aspects: "Do not use tar to whitewash, for that sour cream" (1965), "On the return of breath and consciousness" (1973), "Repentance and self-restraint" (1973), "Education" ( 1974), the proclamation “Live not by lies” (1974), “Our pluralists” (1982), “Your tripod vibrator” (1984). A.I. Solzhenitsyn's "To Live Not by Lies" sounded in a number of publicistic speeches of the writer and acquired a complete and polished form in the appeal "To Live Not by Lies". One of the main theses of this speech by A.I. Solzhenitsyn - the thesis of the coalescence of violence with lies. A.I. Solzhenitsyn possesses a keen sense of the need for freedom and truth, the key to liberation is "personal non-participation in lies!" The main pathos of the appeal: "Let the lie cover everything, let the lie own everything, but at the smallest we will restrain ourselves: let it not possess through me!"

Rod for A.I. Solzhenitsyn at that time, the idea of ​​an immediate, without looking back at other people, uncompromising refusal of first hundreds, thousands, and then millions of people from lies found its fullest, most vivid expression in the appeal "To live not by a lie." Dated on February 12, 1974 - the day of the writer's arrest, the last thing he wrote in his homeland, this appeal sounded in those days like his will. In the constant expectation of an arrest, the outcome of which could not be foreseen, it was a will. Immediately released by the writer's wife in Samizdat and transmitted by her to foreign correspondents, it was already published in the West on February 14 and was soon broadcast on the radio. This does not mean that, by design, addressed to all compatriots, it has spread widely enough. The circle of readers of Samizdat and listeners of foreign Russian radio was rather narrow in the USSR.

A.I. Solzhenitsyn possesses a very acute sense of the need for freedom and truth. The tragedy is that millions of such a conscious, distinct, irresistible need for truth do not, and the regime is still coping with a relatively small elite, sighted and sacrificial. The rest of the sighted, without sacrificing their relative well-being, are content with light opposition, allegory and sophisticated oppositional overtones (censorship often ignores this), and conversations in their own circle; the best - by careful enlightenment and distribution of uncensored literature.

In his speech in Taiwan on October 23, 1982, A.I. Solzhenitsyn said: “In today's world, the betrayal of weakness reigns, and you can truly rely only on your own own strength... However, there is one more - a big and big hope: for the peoples of the enslaved countries, who will not endure endlessly, but will come out menacingly at an hour formidable for their communist rulers. " ? How else can their peoples "come out threateningly"? What could be the "terrible hour" for the "communist rulers" in this context, if not a revolution?

The totalitarianism of a mature, established model is terrible in its hopelessness in the sense of a relatively successful and quick liberation from it. We have not yet seen such liberation without outside interference as in West Germany or Grenada. The categorical refusal of D. Sakharov, A.I. Solzhenitsyn and most other very worthy oppositionists from the idea of ​​forceful resistance within the country - this, in essence, is most likely a statement, including an emotional, instinctive one, of the unreality of such resistance. It is also a powerful reaction to the criminality of Russian revolutionary and subsequent communist violence, characteristic, with a few exceptions, of almost all sub-Soviet opposition to totalitarianism. This is also a natural fear of what self-destructive forms an incredible or almost incredible outbreak of national and social (in non-Russian regions) or purely social (in Russia) physical resistance to the regime from below can take. Resolutely renouncing violence, A.I. Solzhenitsyn offers his way out - revolutionary, but not violent.

The appeal "To live not by lies" actually repeats the constructive part of "Education", but more clearly, sharply, more definitely, with an extremely high concentration of leading ideas. One of the main theses of A.I. Solzhenitsyn - the thesis about the coalescence of violence with lies: “When violence bursts into peaceful human life, his face burns with self-confidence, it carries on the flag, and shouts:“ I am Violence! Disperse, part - I will crush! " But violence is aging quickly, a few years - it is no longer self-confident, and in order to hold on, to look decent, it invariably invokes Lies into its allies. For: violence has nothing to hide behind but lies, and lies can only be supported by violence. And not every day, not every shoulder puts its heavy paw on violence: it requires from us only obedience to lies, daily participation in lies - and this is all loyalty. And here lies the simplest, most accessible key to our liberation, neglected by us: personal non-participation in lies! Let the lie cover everything, let the lie own everything, but let us rest against the smallest: let it not possess through me! "

The question remained outside the scope of the appeal: what is considered the truth? Even the honest ones moral people the specific understanding of the truth often varies greatly. In addition, there is always a loophole for a hypocrite - he writes, sings, draws, sculpts, votes and quotes at the call of his heart (“we write as the heart dictates, and our heart belongs to the party”). Another set of difficult questions remained outside the scope of the appeal - do the citizens of the free world live in truth? Do political freedoms provide freedom to live not by lies? Specific examples (who already do not live by lies) and "instructions for use" - how to live not by lies in privacy(is it always possible?) and in those cases when the lie spares the weak, the sick? And in general: where are the boundaries of the principle? How to behave with an enemy, rival, competitor? Only at first glance is the imperative of A.I. Solzhenitsyn might have seemed an easy and quick task, a simple and straightforward recipe. The idea that, at the call of A.I. Solzhenitsyn had to be allowed to every Russian maximalist, demanded a complete revision of being and consciousness.

“For many decades, not a single issue, not a single major event in our life has been discussed freely and comprehensively, so that we can express a true assessment of what happened and the ways out of it. But everything was suppressed at the very beginning, everything was abandoned by meaningless chaotic rubbish, without caring about the past, and therefore about the future. And there more and more events fell, they piled up in the same crushing blocks. And now, having approached from the outside, it is even difficult to find the strength to disassemble this all layered. " It is this image of suppressed thoughts, suppressed for half a century (even more), that gave the name to the collection "From under the boulders". The thoughts of A.I. Solzhenitsyn are trying to break through under these blocks upwards - to the light and to communication. For those who have not experienced such fifty years, it is even difficult to imagine how, with constant suppression, the thoughts of compatriots scatter. Compatriots seem to cease to understand each other, as if they do not speak the same language. How painful the process was - for society to be speechless when speech was prohibited - it is no less painful for society to return to speech. After such a break, it is not surprising that among dissidents, in fact, among those people in Russia who expressed their thoughts, such sharp differences of opinion arose. They have lost the habit of hearing each other and have completely lost the habit of conducting discussions.

The first thing I would like to note is that this general tone has been adopted throughout the world and in our country: to expose others - other political figures, other parties, other movements, other nations, and this is a pamphlet trend. A.I. Solzhenitsyn urges everyone in general, in all aspects of life, to start by admitting their own mistakes and injustices. A.I. Solzhenitsyn already had to write in The Gulag Archipelago and in other works that the line of good and evil does not pass so primitively that on one side those who are right, and on the other - those who are wrong. The line of good and evil in the world does not divide parties into those who are right or guilty, and even so does not divide people. The line of separation between good and evil runs through the heart of every person. At different times, under different circumstances, and a person, and some group of people, and a whole social movement, and a whole nation, somehow occupied a brighter high position, then, on the contrary, sank into darkness.

A.I. Solzhenitsyn poses in his article "Repentance and Self-Restriction" (1973) the question: is it possible to talk about the repentance of nations, can this feeling of an individual be transferred to a nation? Is it possible to speak of a sin that has been committed by an entire nation? Of course, it never happens that all members of a given nation have committed some kind of crime, or misdemeanor, or sin. On the other hand, in a sense, in the memory of history, in human memory and in national memory, this is how it is imprinted. A.I. Solzhenitsyn said (thought) that in the memory of the former colonial peoples there was a general impression that their former colonialists were guilty before them - as a whole, as a nation, although not everyone was a colonizer. One could observe in one of the parts of Germany a wave of remorse for the events of World War II. This is a completely real national feeling, it was, it even is. They will ask: and under totalitarian regimes, is the people to blame for what their rulers are doing? It seems least of all to blame under totalitarian regimes. And, nevertheless, what are the totalitarian regimes based on, if not on the support of some and the passivity of others?

A.I. Solzhenitsyn examines the history of Russian repentance in Russian society, and then leads a discussion with two antipodes of repentance that he encounters in Russia. The direction of the collection is that, when talking about sins, about crimes, people should never separate themselves from this. They should first of all look for their own fault, their share of participation in this.

In the article "Repentance and Self-Restriction" (1973) A.I. Solzhenitsyn poses the question: how to understand whether the revolution was a consequence of the moral corruption of the people, or vice versa: the moral corruption of the people is a consequence of the revolution? What was the role of the Russians in 1917: was it that they brought communism to the world, gave the world communism, or were the first to take it on their shoulders? So, what are the prospects for other peoples if communism falls on them? Did any people stand against this, will everyone stand in the future? The lack of the Democratic Movement in the Soviet Union was precisely, in particular, that this movement exposed the vices of the social system, but did not repent of its own sins and of the intelligentsia in general. But who kept this regime - was it only tanks and the army, and was it not the Soviet intelligentsia? Most of all, the Soviet intelligentsia kept it. A.I. Solzhenitsyn calls on everyone - if you make a mistake in repentance, then in the big direction, that is, it is better to admit more guilt than less. Calls on everyone to stop the endless grievances between themselves and neighbors. After all, many in the world share the simple point of view that it is impossible to build a good society out of evil people; that purely social transformation is an empty direction. But it is precisely impossible to build a good humanity with evil relations between nations. No pragmatic positive diplomacy will do anything until good feelings are established between peoples. A.I. Solzhenitsyn believes that all the international problems of the world cannot be resolved purely politically; they must be resolved to begin with morality, and morality in relations between nations is repentance and admission of one's guilt. So that repentance does not remain in words, the next inevitable step behind it is self-restraint: people must restrict themselves, and not wait until they are forced to restrict them from the outside. This idea of ​​self-restraint applied to Russia was main thought a letter to the leaders that has been so misunderstood all over the world. A.I. Solzhenitsyn appealed, first of all, to himself, his people, his state, and for some reason this was called isolationism.

A.I. Solzhenitsyn in his public speeches appears to be a master of polemics, for whom the most important thing is the search for truth, discussion of the problem, and not just condemnation or accusation of those in power. His performances can be called truly productive. A.I. Solzhenitsyn tries to explain, prove and defend the justice of his position, always thinking about the welfare of Russia and its people.

2. Journalism of the period of the third wave of emigration 1970-80s

2.1 Problems of Russian emigration in the essays of A.I. Solzhenitsyn "A grain pleased between two millstones"

In the early 1970s. a new exodus of our compatriots abroad began, which received the name - the Third Wave of emigration (sometimes called dissident). In fact, it was not so much national (ie, Jewish) as class (ie, intelligentsia), and expressed its self-awareness with the words “I chose freedom”. The third wave of emigration can be conditionally divided into two groups: a) those leaving for their historical homeland, mainly to Israel, Germany and Greece; b) dissidents voluntarily or compelled to leave their homeland.

The writers of the third wave found themselves in emigration in completely new conditions, they were largely rejected by their predecessors, alien to the "old emigration". Unlike the emigrants of the first and second waves, they did not set themselves the task of "preserving culture" or capturing the hardships experienced at home. Completely different experience, worldview, even different language(so A.I.Solzhenitsyn publishes the Dictionary of Linguistic Expansion, which included dialects, camp jargon) hindered the emergence of ties between generations. During the 50 years of Soviet power, the Russian language has undergone significant changes, the creativity of the representatives of the third wave was formed not so much under the influence of the Russian classics, but under the influence of the American and Latin American literature popular in the 60s in the USSR, as well as the poetry of M. Tsvetaeva, B. Pasternak, prose by A. Platonov. One of the main features of Russian émigré literature of the third wave will be its gravitation towards the avant-garde, postmodernism. At the same time, the third wave was rather heterogeneous: writers of the realistic direction (A. Solzhenitsyn, G. Vladimov), postmodernists (S. Sokolov, Y. Mamleev, E. Limonov), nobel laureate I. Brodsky, anti-formalist N. Korzhavin. Russian literature of the third wave in emigration, according to Naum Korzhavin, is a "tangle of conflicts": "We left in order to be able to fight each other." Undoubtedly, the Russian literary emigration has retained the traditional humanistic pathos of Russian literature. This was especially important in the twentieth century, after the great literary insights and achievements of the nineteenth century. The emigrants were able to oppose the state monopoly on literature with the only possible alternative - the aesthetic one. Real literary criticism survived only in exile. It was in emigration that such genres that were unacceptable for the metropolis, such as dystopia, pamphlet and essays, were able to survive.

It is important that the issues of the spiritual development of the country (Russia, the USSR) were openly discussed on the pages of emigre magazines, as soon as emigration itself appeared. Here the atmosphere of open discussions was revived, which in the metropolis was skillfully replaced by pseudo-openness (in fact, by everyday limitations, in which the head of imagination is the heading “If I were the director…”) of Literaturnaya Gazeta. Different points of view are a normal thing for the literary process, but the Russian emigrants had to make an effort to agree with this. The nature of the discussions already then clearly showed that historical path Russia is in no way a path to a "bright future", to the "yawning heights" of communism. This is still the trend emerging in the disputes between Westernizers and Slavophiles, but already new ones - new Westernizers and new Slavophiles.

Emigrants - critics and essayists - helped a thin layer of Soviet intellectuals survive. An intellectual never associates himself with power, he is always on the sidelines, and to form such a position, special education was needed, different from the standard education. Such programs as "Above the Barriers", magazines "Continent", "Syntax", "Twenty-two", "Time and We" built a different scale of literary values, parallel to the official hierarchy of "secretarial literature". Soviet literature called to be monolithic, emigrant - politicized. Thanks to the existence of each other, neither one nor the other did not succumb to calls. The experience of Russian literature dissected in the twentieth century has shown that literature is not a geographical concept. Literature does not depend on state borders. One can artificially divide the literary process, one can expel writers, but one cannot divide literature. The unity of literature is preserved by the language, the national image of the world, images specific to national literature. Russian émigré literature has proven this with its more than eighty-year history.

Similar documents

Researchers' views on the concepts of "method" and "genre" in journalism. Analysis of publications of the "Literaturnaya Gazeta" of the 1970s, presented under the heading "Experiment" LG "". The practical significance of the experiment in the development of the information society.

thesis, added 10/05/2012


Topics and genre diversity of modern journalism and their relevance. Thematic and genre variety of television projects of ATN - the first channel of Belarusian television. Intellect games for money, intellectual talk shows, show theater.

term paper, added 02/21/2011


Reporting in the system modern means mass media, genre definition. Event, analytical (problematic) and informative-thematic reporting. Genre transformation. Characteristics of the magazine "Russian Reporter" and reports on its pages.

term paper, added 09/06/2011


The history of the emergence of analytical publications in the United States. The emergence and development of newspaper journalism in Russia until the twentieth century. Specific features of the analytical genre in modern journalism, their goals and types. Tasks, signs and stages of creating an article.

term paper, added 11/17/2011


The problem of the genre "letter" and "open letter", its role in I.A. Krylov. I. Krylov's work in periodicals, the problems he raised and the description of characters in his works. Features of style and language in the journalistic works of I. Krylov.

term paper, added 05/10/2010


Professional ethics of a journalist: author's position as an expression of subjectivity. Psychological techniques and ways of manifesting the position of a journalist. Methods of open manifestation of the position of a journalist. Ways of latent manifestation of the position of a journalist.

thesis, added 03/30/2003


The essence of a reality show from the perspective of television journalism. Review of popular programs on Channel One, TNT, STS, MTV, Ren-TV. Analysis of the main genre-forming, socio-psychological, cultural-philosophical factors of reality. Interview with a participant in a reality show.

thesis, added 10/20/2011


Formation of an idea of ​​the genre content of a women's glossy magazine. The glossy press and its impact on the audience. The value of illustrations in the publication, topics of articles. Genre content of Glamor magazine, its target audience and purpose.

abstract added on 05/06/2014


Event-informational, positive-analytical, critical-analytical, satirical, polemical and debatable forms of journalism. Traditions of Russian journalism. The development of all forms of journalism in the middle of the twentieth century. and the growth of public consciousness.

test, added 05/20/2014


Life path of L.M. Reisner, the appearance of her first works and journalistic work during the Civil War. Features of reporting as a genre, the history of its development in Russia. The originality and skill of the reportage letter of Larisa Mikhailovna Reisner.

Introduction

The general patterns of the organization of artistic speech, the peculiarities of the language and style of the writer, the semantic and stylistic transformations of the word in the literary text occupied one of the central places in linguistic research. Special attention should be paid to the works carried out within the framework of the direction "Functional stylistics of a literary text", in which the author's idiostyle is considered based on various microstructures of the text in their specific aesthetic conditioning (NI Bakhmutova, MB Borisova, Ye.G. Kovalevskaya, B.A.Larin, G.A.Lilich, D.M.Potsepnya, K.A.Rogova and others). In this regard, it is relevant to study the lexical originality, the most expressive, vivid and unusual lexical units of the individual author's system of the language.

Solzhenitsyn was one of the brightest representatives who revealed the richness of the Russian language and expanded its boundaries. S.V. Melnikova rightly believes that “A.I. Solzhenitsyn is an artist with a keen sense of linguistic potential. The writer discovers the true art of seeking the resources of the national language to express the author's individuality in the vision of the world ... ”.

About the life and work of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, there is an extensive literature, among which more than two dozen monographs, about twenty dissertations, several collective collections and published materials of scientific conferences can be distinguished. But these are mainly literary studies that touch on problems of a socio-political and ideological nature. Linguistic studies examining the proper lexical system of Solzhenitsyn's works, created in different periods, are presented only in separate articles. In light of the above, the topic of our research is “The lexical originality of two-part stories by A.I. Solzhenitsyn ("On the edges", "Zhelyabugskie carved", "On the breaks", "Nastenka") "sounds relevant.

Object of study - the language of two-part stories by A.I. Solzhenitsyn, created in the 90s of the twentieth century.

Subject of study - the lexical system of these works.

Purpose of the study - to identify and describe the lexical originality of two-part stories by A.I. Solzhenitsyn's "On the edges", "Zhelyabugskie carved", "On the breaks", "Nastenka".

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks :

1. Describe the creative method of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, especially his small prose.

2. Describe the lexical and stylistic features of A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

4. Explore and describe the features of the functioning of vernacular vocabulary in the language of A. Solzhenitsyn's stories.

Research material served as the texts of the stories "On the edges", "Zhelyabugsky carved", "On the breaks", "Nastenka".

The main method research has become a method of linguistic description, including the techniques of observation, analysis, generalization. Methods of word-formation and lexical analysis were also used.

Scientific novelty lies in the fact that for the first time the lexical uniqueness of works, which have so far been subjected only to ideological and content analysis, has been analyzed for the first time.

1. Theoretical foundations of the research

1.1 The specifics of the creative method of A.I. Solzhenitsyn

Solzhenitsyn's creative method is characterized by a special trust in life, the writer seeks to portray everything as it really was. In his opinion, life can express itself, say about itself, you just need to hear it. In the Nobel Lecture (1971–72), the writer emphasized: "One word of truth will overwhelm the whole world." This predetermined the special interest of the writer in the true reproduction of life's reality both in works based on personal experience and in the epic. "Red Wheel" where documenting an accurate depiction of historical events is also fundamentally important.

An orientation towards the truth is already noticeable in the writer's early works, where he tries to make the most of his personal life experience. It is no coincidence that the main character of the poem "Dorozhenka"(1948–53) and in the unfinished story "Love the revolution"(1948, 1958), which was conceived as a kind of continuation of the poem, is Nerzhin (autobiographical character). In these works, the writer tries to comprehend life path in the context of the post-revolutionary fate of Russia. Similar motives dominate in the poems of Solzhenitsyn (1946–53), composed in the camp and in exile.

An essay was written in the cancer building of the Tashkent hospital "Rub your eyes", in which an original interpretation of the play is given, in many respects polemic in relation to the intention of A.S. Griboyedov.

In a dramatic trilogy "1945year" consisting of a comedy "Feast winners ", tragedies "Captives"(1952-1953) and dramas " Republic of Labor ", used the military and camp experience of the author. Here Colonel Georgy Vorotyntsev appears as a character - future hero"Red, Wheels". In addition, in the "Feast of Winners" and "Republic of Labor" the reader meets Gleb Nerzhin, and in "Prisoners" - Valentin Pryanchikov and Lev Rubin, the characters of the novel "The First Circle". "The Feast of the Winners" is a hymn to the Russian officers who have not lost their dignity and honor even in Soviet times. French literary critic Georges Niva discovers in early plays Solzhenitsyn's "striving to be an ethnographer of a tribe of prisoners." This is especially noticeable in the "Republic of Labor", where the camp realities are depicted in great detail, and the speech of the characters contains many jargon. The theme of male friendship is very important in all 3 plays.

The same theme is at the center of the novel. "In the first circle"... "Sharashka", in which Gleb Nerzhin, Lev Rubin (his prototype is Kopelev) and Dmitry Sologdin (prototype is the famous philosopher D.M. vaulted ceiling. Perhaps this was the bliss that all the philosophers of antiquity tried in vain to define and indicate? " Solzhenitsyn's thought is paradoxical, but we should not forget that we are faced only with the “first circle” of half-dantian-half-prison “hell”, where there is still no real torment, but there is room for thought: spiritually and intellectually, this “first circle” appears very fruitful. For example, the novel describes Nerzhin's slow return to the Christian Orthodox faith, shows his attempts to interpret the revolutionary events of 1917 in a new way, depicts Narzhin's "walking" to the people - friendship with the janitor Spiridon (all these motives are autobiographical). At the same time, the title of the novel is symbolically ambiguous. In addition to the "Dante" one, there is also a different understanding of the image of the "first circle". From the point of view of the hero of the novel, diplomat Innokenty Volodin, there are 2 circles - one inside the other. The first, small circle is the fatherland; the second, big - humanity, and on the border between them, according to Volodin - “barbed wire with machine guns ... And it turns out that there is no humanity. But only fatherland, fatherland, and different for everyone ... ". Volodin, calling the American embassy, ​​is trying to warn the military attaché that Soviet agents have stolen in the United States atomic bomb- he does not want Stalin to take possession of it and thus strengthen the communist regime in the USSR. The hero sacrifices his life for the sake of Russia, for the sake of a fatherland enslaved by totalitarianism, but "having found a fatherland, Volodin found humanity." The title of the novel contains both the question of the boundaries of patriotism and the connection between global and national issues.

Stories "One Day in Ivan Denisovich" and "Matrenin Dvor" are close ideologically and stylistically, they reveal an innovative approach to language characteristic of all the writer's work. Both in "One Day of Ivan Denisovich" and in "Matrenin Dvor" the writer actively uses the form tale... At the same time, the expressiveness of the speech of the narrator, the heroes of their environment is created in these works "not only by some unusual vocabulary" exoticism "... but, mainly, skillfully used by means of general literary vocabulary, layered ... colloquially syntactic structure ".

A special place in the writer's work is occupied by a cycle of prose miniatures "Tiny"(1958-60, 1996-97). Solzhenitsyn is a master of the large epic form, so the "weightlessness", "airiness" of these verses in prose seems unexpected. At the same time, the watercolor-transparent artistic structure here expresses a deep religious and philosophical content.

In the story "Cancer building" the reader is presented with "a mosaic of individual chronicles -" personal affairs "of heroes, central and secondary, always correlated with the terrible events of the 20th century." All the inhabitants of the ward for cancer patients depicted in the story are forced to somehow solve the problem of a personal attitude to a possible imminent death, based on their own life experience and their individuality. The volume of the works of L.N. Tolstoy makes them think about the question: "How are people alive?" The appearance of this motif on the pages of Cancer Ward may suggest a direct influence on the writer of Tolstoy's ideas, but Solzhenitsyn emphasized that Tolstoy had never been a moral authority for him and that, in comparison with Tolstoy, F.M. Dostoevsky "raises moral questions ... sharper, deeper, more modern, more visionary." At the same time, the high assessment of Tolstoy the artist is indicative, so it is not surprising that the writer partly follows the Tolstoy tradition in constructing a large epic form. At the same time, the influence on the poetics of Solzhenitsyn's works of modernist prose by E.I. Zamyatin, M.I. Tsvetaeva, D. Dos Passos. Solzhenitsyn is a writer of the 20th century, and he is not afraid of new and unusual forms if they contribute to a more vivid artistic embodiment of the depicted reality.

In this sense, the writer's desire to go beyond traditional genres is also indicative. So, "Gulag Archipelago" has a subtitle "The Experience of Artistic Research". Solzhenitsyn creates a new type of work, bordering between fiction and popular science literature, as well as journalism. The Gulag Archipelago with documentary accuracy of depictions of places of detention reminds Dostoevsky's Notes from the House of the Dead, as well as books about Sakhalin by A.P. Chekhov and V.M. Doroshevich, however, if earlier hard labor was mainly the punishment of the guilty, then in the time of Solzhenitsyn, a huge number of innocent people were punished by it, it serves the self-affirmation of the totalitarian government. The writer collected and summarized a huge amount of historical material that dispels the myth of the "humanity" of Leninism. The devastating and deeply reasoned criticism of the Soviet system produced a bomb-like effect all over the world. The reason is that this work is a document of great artistic, emotional and moral strength, in which the gloom of the depicted material of life is overcome with the help of a kind of catharsis. According to Solzhenitsyn, the Gulag Archipelago is a tribute to the memory of those who died in this hell. The writer fulfilled his duty to them by restoring the historical truth about the most terrible pages of the history of Russia.

Book "Butting a calf with an oak tree"(1967–75; last revised 1992) has the subtitle "Essays literary life» ... Here the object of study is the literary and social situation in the country of the 60s - 1st floor. 70s 20th century This book tells about the writer's struggle with the Soviet system, which suppressed any dissent. This is a story about the confrontation between truth and semi-official lies, a chronicle of defeats and victories, a story about the heroism and asceticism of the writer's numerous volunteer assistants. This book is about the spiritual liberation of literature in spite of all the efforts of the Communist Party, the state and punitive bodies. It contains many vivid portraits of literary and public figures of that time. A special place in the "sketches" is occupied by the image of A.T. Tvardovsky. The editor-in-chief of Novy Mir is depicted without idealization, but with great sympathy and nagging pain. The artistic and documentary portrait of Tvardovsky is multidimensional and does not fit into any scheme. A living person appears before the reader, complex, brightly talented, strong and tortured by the very party from which he, and quite sincerely, never separated himself, which he faithfully and faithfully served.

The continuation of the memoirs "Butting a calf with an oak" is an autobiographical book "A grain suited between two millstones"(1978) subtitled "Sketches of Exile". It tells about the fate of the writer during the years of his forced stay outside Russia. The publication of this book has not yet been completed.

10-volume tetralogy "Red Wheel" dedicated to detailed and historically deep imaging February revolution 1917 and its origins. The writer collected and used many documents from the period under study. No historian has yet described the February events in such detail, literally by the hour, as Solzhenitsyn did in The Red Wheel.

Solzhenitsyn considers The Red Wheel an epic, rejecting such genre definitions, like a novel or an epic novel. This piece is deeply innovative and extremely complex. In addition to purely artistic chapters, it also contains "overview" chapters in which one or another historical events... These chapters gravitate towards the genre of artistic research. At the same time, in the tetralogy there is a montage of newspaper materials (a technique borrowed from Dos Passos), and artistic means of script dramaturgy ("screen") are also used. In addition, some chapters are composed of short passages, each of several lines. Thus, Solzhenitsyn's epic "receives a structure completely different from the traditional realistic novel." ...

In the 90s. Solzhenitsyn returned to the small epic form. In "two-part" stories "Molodnyak" (1993),"Nastenka" (1995), "Apricot Jam", "This", "On the Edge"(all - 1994), "Does not matter" (1994–95), "On the Bends" (1996),"Zhelyabugskie vyselki"(1998) and a small "one-day story" "Adlig Schwenkitten "(1998) intellectual depth meets architectonic perfection, dialectically ambiguous vision artistic reality- with the subtlest sense of the word. All this is evidence of the mature skill of Solzhenitsyn as a writer.

1.2 The lexico-stylistic features of A.I. Solzhenitsyn

O The main feature of the individual author's style of the writer is the work of the writer to expand the possibilities of linguistic expression. The work on the lexical stock of the Russian language is not limited to the creation of vivid linguistic images in works of art. Moreover, it is the work of the writer as a linguist that anticipates and defines the linguistic features of his works of fiction. The writer deliberately and purposefully seeks to enrich the Russian national language, as evidenced by his linguistic articles, and the ideas about the Russian language expressed in interviews, and the Dictionary of Linguistic Expansion.

The combination of bright innovation and deep rootedness in the national tradition is the most characteristic feature of the Solzhenitsyn language. This is most clearly manifested in the field of vocabulary. The writer uses a wide variety of vocabulary: there are many borrowings from the dictionary of V.I. Dahl, from the works of other Russian writers and the actual author's expressions. A.I. Solzhenitsyn uses not only vocabulary that is not contained in any of the dictionaries, but also little used, forgotten, or even ordinary, but reinterpreted by the writer and carries new semantics. In addition, the writer has significantly expanded the possibilities of using non-literary vocabulary.

For example, the language of the story "One Day in Ivan Denisovich" clearly indicates that the writer is implementing his large-scale idea of ​​lexically expanding the Russian language. First of all, it is necessary to highlight the vocabulary, which is actually the author's formations. The characteristic features of such lexemes are disposability and the resulting non-normality, dependence on the context, expressiveness, polysemanticity and belonging to a specific author-creator. Based on the listed features in the story "One Day in Ivan Denisovich" copyright occasionalisms can be defined as follows - these are lexical units not marked in dictionaries or used in a meaning not marked in dictionaries, created by the author for only one linguistic situation. Often these are truncated word forms formed by cutting off affixes of more modern origin than the root (for example, circle, heating, from afar). There are occasional words formed by skinning (nonlinear addition, in which one truncated stem modifies the meaning of another stem and can approach an affix in function, for example, light up, lop). Skinning must be distinguished from the simple connection of two roots, each of which completely retains its shape. This is how, for example, occasionalisms are formed mischievous, reckless, earth-cutter. Among the occasionalisms, there are forms formed with the help of highly productive affixes from high-frequency roots (for example, steadily, haphazardly, terpelnik).

Lexical occasionalisms of A.I. Solzhenitsyn were created within the framework of four main parts of speech: nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs. Particular preference is given to the formation of compound words. The addition created not only nouns (RUN-FLY, GENERAL-ITCH, RIDE-GAME, SOLDIER-RUNNER, ARROWS-CLAWS, STEP-JUMP, etc.), adjectives (LAPPY-CLEAN, DREAMY, HAPPY-HAPPY SIGNIFICANTLY MYSTERIOUS, ROUND-DRAWN, FRENCH-BLUE, etc.), which is common for the language, but also verbs (BURNING-SMOKE, PLAY-FIGHTING, SEARCHING-ASKING, WALKING-LISTENING) (also in others. ICE-LOVELY, alkali-like, swelling, inexplicably alien, lacrimal-knee-like, ridiculously friendly, etc.).

Solzhenitsyn's occasionalisms, embodied in the form of adverbs (and precisely the adverbs of the mode of action), sound most acute. It is in this part of speech that the writer's ability to create words and the richness of the phenomenon expressed by it are most fully combined. An example of a borrowed form but transformed occasional semantics is the following adverb:

However, he began to eat it just as slowly, attentively [Solzh. 1978: 15].

Adverb attentively we find in V.I. Dahl. It can be assumed that the reason for the choice by the writer of this particular form of adverb lies in the separation of the adverb attentively from the forming verb listen. IN AND. Dahl defines this verb as follows:

ATTENTION, heed what, I heed and heeded, arch. fight, listen carefully, listen, greedily absorb by hearing; assimilate what you have heard or read, direct your thoughts and will to it [Dal, I: 219].

The prisoner in the camp eats his portion not only attentively (with concentration), but greedily absorbing, absorbing, assimilating everything that is possible, directing all his thoughts and his will to it.

The adverb is formed according to the same morphological scheme subtly from the verb to stumble (stumble) i.e. ‘It’s unfortunate to step, to stumble’. In this case, the adverb is a sign of the verb walk, absent in the sentence, but implied. So, the phrase stealthily down the ladder can be expanded to offer walking on the ladder is inconvenient because you can easily stumble or step unsuccessfully. This is the so-called "law of economy" in the linguistic creativity of A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

It is in occasional adverbs that an important feature of A.I. Solzhenitsyn: "striving for polysemy, for the maximum possible semantic and expressive content of the word, for its complication and transformation, for layering several aesthetically significant meanings or shades of meanings within a separate lexical unit."

Verbs are also a productive part of speech for A.I. Solzhenitsyn. The writer is especially fond of prefixed verbs (and sometimes multi-prefixed ones), since they have the ability to express some content not only in the root of the word, but also in the prefix. The polysemy of author's prefixed verbs can be illustrated by the following example:

To get on the snow on the bare, than to sew up those windows, it was not easy ("One Day in Ivan Denisovich").

Prefix from - emphasizes the exhaustion, completeness of the manifestation of action To get- it's not only get, but also contrive and get, torment and get.

However, the most extensive area of ​​the writer's occasional word production is nominal.

Compound adjectives in A.I. Solzhenitsyn is mainly two-component. There are isolated cases of using a larger number of components to form a complex word, and one of the components can itself be a complex formation (TWO-C-HALF-YEARS (debate), NON-LOCAL (Kurlov), LOVE-LASKOVO-FRIENDLY, CHERNOUSO-BANDITSKY (muzzles croupier), etc.). An occasional complex adjective can be "self-sufficient", that is, it itself is the context of the formation of occasional semantics (SNOW-BLUE (ridge), SIZO-LILOVY (clouds) SHAROGOLOVY (Feldwebel), PUSHISTUSY (Yanushkevich), KRUPNOOKY (storeroom), etc.).

On the other hand, for word creation A.I. Solzhenitsyn is not characterized by such ways of forming occasional lexemes as the use of unproductive affixes or the continuous spelling of phrases (which we find in other authors). This is due to the basic principles of the writer's word creation: the focus on general use occasional words and the desire for concise text.

2. The lexical originality of A. Solzhenitsyn's two-part stories "On the Edge", "Zhelyabugskie Vyselki", "On the Bends", "Nastenka"

2.1 Author's occasionalisms in the literary text of two-part stories by A. Solzhenitsyn

Under lexical occasionalisms we understand such lexical author's neoplasms, which in literary language was not previously. We share the opinion of E.A. Zemskoy, who believes that these words “do not arise according to the rules. They realize their creative individuality and live not in series, but alone. "

Lexical occasionalisms are mostly single-use words, although they can be used in other works of the given author. The question of the authorship of words is controversial. T. Vinokur gave a deep and convincing answer to this question: “In no particular case can we say with certainty that we have before us the words that Solzhenitsyn“ took and invented ”. Moreover, it is unlikely that he himself would have dared to precisely define the border between the created and the reproduced, so, as a rule, the speech environment that he depicts as a member (and therefore, to some extent, the creator of which ) he is" . If Solzhenitsyn was not himself, or rather, he was not the only one who created these words, then he was their co-creator. They form the basis of his idiostyle. In practice, the creation (creation) of lexical occasionalisms occurs with a violation of the systemic productivity of word-formation laws.

Here, according to E.A. Zemskoy, two types of occasionalisms can be distinguished: “1) produced with a violation of the systemic productivity of word-formation types;

2) produced on the model of unproductive types in a particular era, i.e. in violation of the laws of empirical productivity ".

We have identified two types of casualisms in stories:

– created on the basis of the word-formation system , but according to individual semantics or using ready-made word-formation elements, or your own:

He began to study equestrianism, with a good straightening... Six months later, he was promoted to a training team, graduated as a junior non-commissioned officer - and from August 16th in the dragoon regiment he went to the front. ("At the edges").

They stood near Tsaritsyn, then sent them to Akhtuba against the Kalmyks: the Kalmyks were crazy, they did not recognize the Soviet power as one, and did not draw in them. ("At the edges").

Why, and THEM have information: once they came to the parking lot of bandits, abandoned in haste- and found there a copy of the order by which they came here! ("At the edges").

Already so scared- not for the power, not for the PARTIZANTS, but only: let go of the soul. ("At the edges").

And the supply in the Red Army is strong pinched, then they give ration, then no. ("At the edges").

They will drink a mahot with milk, and the pot - land on the ground, angry.

And they forced a peasant teenager to drive his cart with a squadron clays along with the red chase, he from the heart: "Yes, if only you could quickly catch up with these peasants, and let me go to maman."

Women gasp cry, howl. “Close the line. Who are the bandits among you? " Recount, selected for a new execution. They can't stand it, they start giving out. And who - picked up and flew, to different ends, not all and shoot.

In the formation of nouns, the use of verb prefixes is observed, whereby the effect of evaluative expression is achieved. The created words realize the creative potential of Solzhenitsyn, create his individual idiostyle.

– semantic occasionalisms - lexemes that previously existed in the literary language retained their phonomorphological form, but acquired novelty due to individual author's meanings.

New meanings bring newly created words beyond those meanings that are recorded in well-known explanatory dictionaries. The linguistic nature of the vocabulary of this class changes, from the sphere of the usus they move to the area of ​​the occasional.

It should be noted that secondary nominations are created in this way. Secondary (occasional) naming is caused by the search for the author of an expressive word. G.O. Vinokur wrote that the secondary nomination was caused by the need “to name differently in different cases same".

2.2 Colloquial vocabulary in two-part stories

T.G. Vinokur, as a subtle and deep researcher of the language of Russian fiction, gave a detailed analysis of the language and style of Solzhenitsyn's story, highly appreciated the presence of "common" words in his style, as they "renew the usual associative connections and images." They, together with the context, help the reader correctly understand the meaning of occasionalism.

The writer uses colloquial vocabulary to characterize the characters:

Still more eternal and more unshakable than them! What was more dynamic, sharper, more resourceful in the later? In the Andropov years, how many elite ones with higher education poured here! Vsevolod Valerianovich himself graduated only from law school, but physicists, mathematicians and psychologists also worked there next to him: getting to work in the KGB was both a visible personal advantage, and interest, and the feeling that you really influenced the course of the country. These were the most intelligent positions in the whirlwinds of the new crazy time - Kosargin overcame. They groped for the vein, and it could even lead a long way. ("On the Bends")

There are also the use of colloquially reduced words:

In work, foe! ("At the edges").

In this example, Solzhenitsyn betrays the emotional state of a simple Russian guy, as well as his attitude.

Conclusion

Currently, the problem of analyzing the writer's language has acquired paramount importance, since the study of the idiostyle of a particular author is interesting not only in terms of observing the development of the national Russian language, but also for determining the personal contribution of the writer to the process. language development... In this regard, it seems relevant to appeal to the work of masters of the word, such as A.I. Solzhenitsyn. In our work, we made an attempt to investigate the lexical originality of A. Solzhenitsyn's two-part stories.

In the first chapter of the study, we characterized the creative method of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, and also described the lexical and stylistic features of A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

The second chapter of the research is devoted to the study of the originality of the author's occasionalisms in the stories "Zhelyabugskie carved", "On the breaks", "Nastenka", and the peculiarities of their functioning. Here we have investigated and described the features of the functioning of vernacular vocabulary in the language of A. Solzhenitsyn's stories.

As a result of our research, we came to the following conclusions.

The works of A.I. Solzhenitsyn is a material that reveals the hidden potential of the Russian national language, representing the possibilities of its development. The main direction is the enrichment of vocabulary through such groups as the author's occasional vocabulary, slang vocabulary, dialect-vernacular vocabulary.

Peculiarities artistic language A.I. Solzhenitsyn were a reaction to the situation that developed in Soviet fiction and journalistic literature: an orientation towards a neutral style and a tendency towards cliches.

In this situation, the writer's linguistic work, aimed at returning the lost linguistic wealth, seems, on the one hand, reformatory, on the other, it is a continuation of the work of the classics of Russian literature. An innovative approach to language is manifested, first of all, in the expressiveness of the lexical means of artistic speech due to the author's own occasionalisms, as well as the use of resources of vernacular and dialects.

List of used literature

1. Vinokur T.G. Happy new year, sixty-second ... / T.G. Vinokur // Questions of literature. - 1991. - No. 11/12. - S. 59.

2. Vinokur G.O. On the study of the language of literary works // Selected works on the Russian language / G.O. Distiller. - M .: States. ucheb.-pedagogical ed. Min. education of the RSFSR, 1959, pp. 229–256.

3. Gerasimova E.L. Sketches about Solzhenitsyn / E.L. Gerasimov. - Saratov: New Wind Publishing House, 2007. P. 90–105

5. Dyrdin A.A. Russian prose of the 1950s - early 2000s: from worldview to poetics: textbook / A.A. Dyrdin. - Ulyanovsk: UlSTU, 2005.

6. Zhivov V.M. How the "Red Wheel" rotates / V.М. Zhivov // New World. - 1992. - No. 3. - P. 249

7. Zemskaya E.A. etc. Word formation // Modern Russian language: Textbook / V.А. Beloshapkova, E.A. Zemskaya, I.G. Miloslavsky, M.V. Panov; Ed. V.A. Beloshapkova. - M .: Higher. school, 1981.S. 35

8. Zemskaya E.A. Word formation as an activity / E.A. Zemskaya. - M., 2007

9. Knyazkova V.S. Reflection of the lexical originality of A.I. Solzhenitsyn in Slovak translations (based on the story "One Day in Ivan Denisovich"). Abstract of Cand. philol. Sciences / V. S Knyazkova. - SPb., 2009.

10. Melnikova S.V. On the role of the lexical potential in the idiostyle of A.I. Solzhenitsyn (on the example of lexico-derivational dialectisms of the "Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion") // A.I. Solzhenitsyn and Russian Literature: Scientific reports / S.V. Melnikov. - Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 2004. P. 259–263.

11. Nemzer A.S. Christmas and Resurrection / A.S. Nemzer // Literary Review. - 1990. - No. 6. - S. 33.

12. Niva J. Solzhenitsyn / J. Niva. - M .: Hood. Lit., 1992.S. 58

13. Polishchuk E., Zhilkina M. Anniversary of Alexander Solzhenitsyn / E. Polishchuk, M. Zhilkina // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. - 1999, - No. 1. - S. 12-13.

14. Solzhenitsyn A.I. In the first circle / A.I. Solzhenitsyn. - M., 1990.T. 2.S. 8.

15. Solzhenitsyn A.I. "Woe from Wit" through the eyes of a prisoner / A.I. Solzhenitsyn. - M., 1954.

16. Solzhenitsyn A.I. On the edges / A.I. Solzhenitsyn // Roman newspaper. -1995. - No. 23/24

17. Solzhenitsyn A.I. Publicism: In 3 volumes / A.I. Solzhenitsyn. - Yaroslavl: Upper-Volga. Publishing house, 1995.Vol. 1.P. 25

18. Tempest R. Hero as a witness: Mythopoetics of Alexander Solzhenitsyn / R. Tempest // Star. - 1993. - No. 10. - P. 186

19. Urmanov A.V. Poetics of prose by Alexander Solzhenitsyn / A.V. Urmanov. - M., 2000.S. 131

Melnikova S.V. On the role of the lexical potential in the idiostyle of A.I. Solzhenitsyn (on the example of lexico-derivational dialectisms of the "Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion") // A.I. Solzhenitsyn and Russian Literature: Scientific reports / S.V. Melnikov. - Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 2004. P. 259–263

Solzhenitsyn A.I. Publicism: In 3 volumes / A.I. Solzhenitsyn. - Yaroslavl: Upper-Volga. publishing house, 1995.

Solzhenitsyn A.I. "Woe from Wit" through the eyes of a prisoner / A.I. Solzhenitsyn. - M., 1954.

Niva J. Solzhenitsyn / J. Niva - M: Hood lit., 1992.S. 58.

Solzhenitsyn A.I. In the first circle / A.I.Solzhenitsyn. - M., 1990.T. 2.P. 8

Vinokur G.O. On the study of the language of literary works // Selected works on the Russian language / G.O. Distiller. - M .: States. ucheb.-pedagogical ed. Min. education of the RSFSR, 1959, p. 233.

Vinokur T. Happy new year, sixty-second / T. Vinokur // Questions of literature. - 1991. - No. 11/12. - S. 60.

Tutoring

Need help exploring a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Send a request with the indication of the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Author details

Zorkina N.V.

Place of work, position:

Gymnasium №5, Sochi, Khosta, teacher of Russian language and literature

Krasnodar region

Resource characteristics

Education levels:

Secondary (complete) general education

Class (s):

Class (s):

Class (s):

Item (s):

Literature

Item (s):

Literary reading

Item (s):

Russian language

The target audience:

Student (student)

The target audience:

Teacher (teacher)

Resource type:

Methodical development

Brief description of the resource:

This work examines the linguistic features of A. Solzhenitsyn's story "Matrenin's Dvor". Development materials can be used both in preparation for lessons and in circle work.

METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

"LANGUAGE FEATURES OF THE STORY OF A. I. SOLZHENITSYN" MATRENIN Dvor "

(comments to the text)

And literature

MOU gymnasium number 5

Zorkina Nina Vasilievna

Sochi 2010

Language features of the story by A.I.Solzhenitsyn

"Matryonin dvor"

The aim of my work is:

· Find out how the linguistic features of the story contribute to the disclosure of the ideological concept of the work;

· Analysis of some vernacular and dialectal words and expressions used in the story;

Clarification of the meaning of words given in the footnotes of the textbook of literature for grade 9

A.I. Solzhenitsyn in the story "Matryonin Dvor" continues the traditions of Russian writers of the 19th century. in the image of the Russian national character, such as N.A. Nekrasov, N.S. Leskov. The heroines of Nekrasov ("Who Lives Well in Russia") and Solzhenitsyn bear the same name - Matryona, they are united by the inescapable strength of spirit, despite the difficulties of life, high morality that goes deep into the roots of the people.

Matryona Vasilievna and Leskov's characters are brought together by the theme of righteousness. As A.V. Urmanov writes, Matryona Vasilievna is "a person who lives according to the commandments of Christ, who managed to preserve the purity and holiness of the soul in the most dramatic circumstances of Russian history of the 20th century." (1)

And the time, indeed, was difficult and ambiguous. And in order to understand the author's intention, to plunge into the depths of folk life, to comprehend a truly national character, to feel the beauty of folk speech, it is necessary either to live next to Matryona Vasilyevna in the 50s of the last century in a "kondova" village, or to read the story so that not a single the word did not remain misunderstood.

Creating the image of Matryona, Solzhenitsyn reproduces the folk character of her speech, her melodious manner of speaking. However, some words and expressions are not entirely clear to the uninitiated reader, for example: "ufish", "obapol", "tizheli" and others.

“The hut ... did not seem to be kind,” “cockroaches were changing,” and others. And what is interesting, the vernacular language in the author's speech can be traced on the pages devoted to the story of the living Matryona. After the death of the heroine, the author's speech changes, it becomes drier and stricter. And only at the moment of farewell to Matryona, in the cries of relatives, and at the end of the story, the speech patterns characteristic of the national language reappear: “I didn’t chase after the purchase ... I didn’t get out to buy things and then take care of them more than my life. Didn't chase outfits. For clothes that embellish freaks and villains ... "

According to French critic Georges Niva(2), the story is replete with regional, peasant words, which gives "amazing authenticity to the story," but at the same time makes it difficult to translate them into French. For the Russian reader, it is not difficult to understand the folk vocabulary of the story: the meanings of vernacular, dialectal words and expressions can be found in the "Russian Dictionary of Linguistic Expansion", which was created by A.I.Solzhenitsyn and whose material was widely used in his works, in Dahl's dictionary "Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language ”. Unfortunately, not all students have dictionaries handy

A.I. Solzhenitsyn and VI Dal, and in the textbook-reader on literature for the 9th grade, edited by V.Ya. Korovina, M., "Education", 2006. only 18 words and phrases are explained in the footnotes.

Using materials from V. Dahl's dictionary and knowledge of dialects of central Russia, I allowed myself to comment on some words and expressions of the story.

Comments on the language of the story. (3)

1. “... the trains slowed down almost as if until the touch» ( almost stopped, as if feeling the road) (112)
2. «… interior Russia" ( middle village Rus) (112)
3. “… Something has already begun fear " (started to move, change) (112)
4. «… one-piece enclosed forest ... High Field ... (High Field, surrounded by forest on all sides) (113)
5. "…village dragged food bags from the regional city. " ( brought food) (113)
6. «… badly plastered barracks .. "( poorly plaster) (113)
7. " …Forest dashing stood "(perky, here: thick) (114)
8. «… condo Russia "( old, original) (114)
9. « … brought up her aged mother "( looked after, inspected) (114)
10. «… until dry bridged rivulets .. "( with a partitioned embankment for water accumulation) (114)
11. «… in run she lives…" ( untidy, unclean) (115)
12. “Outside the front door, internal steps climbed up spacious bridges, high roofed "( platform, roll, separating the front hut from the back) (115)
13. “To the left, there were more steps leading up to the upper room - a separate log house without a stove, and the steps down into podklet " (lower housing of the hut, intended for the storeroom) (115)
14. "Do not know how, do not cook - how uf you» ( please) (116)
15. "... Matryona's hut did not seem benevolent…» ( not dilapidated, comfortable for living) (116)
16. "…all bellies it was - this one dirty-white bow-legged goat ... ( living creatures) (118)
17. “I obediently ate everything cooked for me, patiently put it aside if I came across something uncommon…»( superfluous, sloppy) (119)
18. « Now I put a tooth, Ignatic, I know where to get ... "( scouted, found out) (120)
19. "…Yes duel into the windows ... "( "Blizzard", blizzard) (120)
20. "Letos we trained peat rocks! " ( past years) (120)
21. «… trust troubled ... "(fussed, fussed, was brought in in a hurry) (121)
22. « What can I say? lagging!" (dialectal: in vain, in vain, useless) (121)
23. "They were boiling with hay as usual in low water, From Petrov to Ilyin »

(span) (122)

1. « Neither to the post nor to the railing this work» ( useless work) (123)
2. "When, there were , by oneself worked, so there was no sound ... "( for yourself) (123)
3. "Fear the tailor and the shepherd,- she explained to me. - All over the village you will be exalted, if something is wrong with them "( please the tailor and the shepherd, so that they do not disgrace you) (124)
4. « Call a doctor at home ... it was in Talnov twice ...» (surprisingly not accepted) (124)
5. "Which horses oat, those and tizheli do not recognize "( those who are fed oats; gravity) (124)
6. « Manenko and I calmly saw ... "( a little)(125)
7. “Has anyone taken unsettled someone else's blessed water? " (by chance) (126)
8. « Forget they stood dark ... "( on weekdays) (126)
9. “... Matryona, holding on to the apron, came out from behind the partition thawed, with a veil of tears in his dim eyes "( agitated) (127)
10. « Dismissing, I understand…" ( figured out) (129)
11. "Me myself I never beat ... "( husband) (131)
12. “... and grew old in her unconventional Matryona "( restless, lonely) (132)

39. “So that evening Matryona revealed to me in full "(completely, completely) (132)

41. "After all, I am her (quilted jacket ) begma picked up, and forgot that your "(On the run) (135)

42. "... and for a plant did not chase; and not gentle ..."(Everything you need for home,

It makes no sense to dwell on the explanation of all common words and folk expressions: many of them become clear with etymological, morphemic, phonetic analyzes of the word. So, for example, the word "babble" goes back to "babble", "babble", "talk". In the sentence “But even here there was no separate room, everywhere it was cramped and shovel "(114) the word "lopotno" means “Noisy, restless". Or a word

"Before the light"(119) is formed by adding the preposition" before "and the noun" light "

(dawn) which means "Sunk until dawn (at dawn)". Snowstorm Matryona called "Duel"120), since she formed this word from the same root" blow, blow out. " "Potato" at Matryona's "Kart" (118), "experience" - "stash" (119), "lightning" - "molonia" (124), "spoilage" - "portion" (132) etc.

It is necessary to read the author's text very carefully and give clear comments. In the textbook of literature for grade 9, edited by V.Ya. Korovina, an explanation of the word is given in a footnote "Raft" - "composition of the forest" (according to the dictionary of V. Dahl) And in the story, this word has a different meaning, it can be determined by the following sentences: “The driver watched everything so that the train did not come from Cherustey, his lanterns could be seen far away, and on the other hand, from our station, there were two coupled steam locomotives - without lights and backwards"(138) and" And the road management itself was to blame for the fact that the busy crossing was not guarded, and for the fact that the locomotive raft ran without lanterns ”(142).Nowhere is it written that the locomotives were pulling the train with the forest.

In my opinion, the word "Fidgety" - "fidgety". In the dictionary of V. I. Dahl, this word means "To run, to fuss, to be brought in in a hurry, to bother." Verb " fuss " matters (these are words - homonyms): 1. Get tired, knock off your feet from the hustle and bustle. 2. Start to fuss (Ozhegov's dictionary). And in the text the following phrase: “It (the peat) dries until autumn, or even until the snow, if the road does not become or the trust is shaken. It was at this time that the women took him. " (121) ... It is clear, it means that the trust “ tired, knocked down from the hustle and bustle. " And if the reader did not refer to the dictionary, then he may understand that "Fussing - it means he began to fuss." And if he began to fuss, that is, to be active, then it is unlikely that the women would have been able to "take" the peat. It probably makes sense to indicate in a footnote: "Fussed about: knocked off his feet from the bustle."

Explanation in the footnote of the word " delicious "goat: « the only one, only one"Creates a speech excess:" So, one solid it was a great work for the goat to collect hay for Matryona ”(122) (it turns out:“ one, only only one goat "). Probably, in the footnote it was enough to indicate "The only».

In general, the language of the story is similar to the language of the lyric folk tale, abounds in stable folk expressions, sayings, aphorisms.

It is impossible not to dwell on the amazing expression about the "song under the sky": “And - a song, a song under the sky, which the village has long lagged behind to sing, and you can't sing with the mechanisms(130) Everything is here: the longing for folk songs, which were performed with such purity, sincerity and soulfulness that they filled everything “under the sky” around; and use of the word "Lagged behind" instead of "Stopped" carries a quite definite semantic load: "you can't sing with mechanisms" that do not contribute to the development of spirituality and raise the mood of the peasant, but on the contrary, they scare: "As I go to Cherusti, the train will get out from Nechaevka, its huge eyes will hatch, the rails are buzzing - already it throws me into a fever, my knees are shaking. " That is why “ the village has lagged behind to sing ", but did not stop.

Elements of lyrical folklore motifs sound in Matryona's story about Thaddeus, young, desired, disappeared in the "German" war: "Three years hid I waited. And not a word, and not a bone... "(130) Three years for a nineteen-year-old girl is a long time, but she, deliberately fencing herself off from all the temptations of youth," hiding ", waited for her betrothed from the war. However, fate puts her before a test (like all the righteous): to survive the loss of hope for happiness: “ And not a word, and not a bone ... " More than forty years have passed, but the wound in Matryona's heart does not heal, and the old pain sounds in this expression - lamentation.

And how poetic is the expression: “ They were seething as usual with hay in low water, from Petrov to Ilyin. It was considered a herb - honey... "(122) How can it be compared with neutral:" It used to be that they were actively harvesting hay from Petrov's Day to Ilyin. The grass was considered good ”?

You cannot read the lines without a smile: “ Now I put a tooth, Ignatich, I know where to get it, - she said about peat. - Well, a place, love one!" (120) So much sweet, naive peasant satisfaction has been put into the words “now I got a grudge,” that is, “I have explored a place where you can take peat,” that, of course, “love” is one joy!

And what a deep understanding of the difference in attitude to work on the collective farm and on oneself is felt in Matryona's words: “This work is neither to the post, nor to the railing. You will stand, leaning on a shovel, and wait, whether soon the beep from the factory will be twelve ... worked for themselves, so there was no sound, only oh-oh-oyinki, now dinner has arrived, now the evening has come. (123) Here is also a disappointment in the collective farm life, to which she no longer had anything to do: "since she began to be very ill, and she was released from the collective farm"; and longing for an individual farm, work in which was a joy in his youth: "... oh - oh - oyinki ..."

The melodiousness, emotionality of Matryona's speech is manifested not only in joy, but also in grief: "Oh-oh-oyinki, poor little head! .. After all, I am her ( quilted jacket) Begma picked up, and forgot what is yours. Sorry, Ignatic. " (135)

Matryona's last words are not about herself, but about those who deprive her of peace, encroaching on the integrity of her home: “ And what was two not to pair? One tractor would get sick - the other pulled up. And now what will happen - God knows! .. "(136) With the name of God on his lips and in his soul he passes away truly holy woman sufferer.

Being a primordial villager, resigned to her fate, not flaunting her faith, responsive to any request, “foolishly working for others for free”, not looking for benefits for herself, Matryona is a righteous man of the 20th century, “... the ethical ideal of the Russian people, which coincides in its basic “parameters” with the Christian ideal ”(4).

Many literary scholars believe that “ Solzhenitsyn's language searches and image folk character as a type of righteous eccentric in the story "Matryonin's yard" influenced the subsequent “village prose”, such writers as V. Astafiev, V. Shukshin, V. Rasputin. ” yard "" country prose"" Has become not just a peasant, but Christian "(6)

Notes (edit)

1. A. V. Urmanov. The story "Matryonin's yard" by A.I.Solzhenitsyn in the context of Russian religious art. "Moscow Lyceum" .2001.Page 381

2. Niva J. Solzhenitsyn. M., 1992

3. The story is cited from the publication: Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Small collected works. Volume 3. Stories. M., 1991. Reference to pages is given in brackets.

4. Urmanov A.V. The story "Matryonin's yard" by A.I.Solzhenitsyn in the context of Russian religious art. " "Moscow Lyceum", 2001. Page 381

5. Torkunova T.V., Alieva L.Yu., Babina N.N., Chernenkova O.B. Preparing for the literature exam. Lectures. Questions and tasks. M., 2004. Page 347

6. Chalmaev V.A. Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Life and Work. M., 1994. Page 87

Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn, Nobel laureate, lived difficult life full of tests. For impartial remarks about Stalin, he was sent to a prison camp.

This contributed to the disclosure of his literary abilities, in his world-famous works "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" and "In the First Circle" Solzhenitsyn described the life and customs of those who were in exile, and the torment that had to go through those whose activities did not suit the authorities.

In 1975, Alexander Isaevich published a composition of his own memoirs, which was called "Butting a calf with an oak".

It is difficult to single out the main area of ​​activity of this brilliant person, because he is a recognized writer, an influential public figure and a talented publicist. But how much Solzhenitsyn managed to do in his entire life suggests that he is much more than these three roles.

Brief biography of Solzhenitsyn

Solzhenitsyn was always spoken of as a separate phenomenon that combined the tendencies of a certain historical era. The biography of the writer himself says that his fate is the fate of many people who had to endure the Stalinist repressions.

This man had to go through a lot - arrest, exile, eight years of imprisonment, a serious illness and brutal war... And Alexander Isaevich passed each test with honor, he was not destroyed by the cruelty and injustice of the world, this is what prompted him to write many works about the camps.

Solzhenitsyn's life was full of contradictory events - he went through the Great Patriotic War, but was arrested and exiled as a traitor; he survived an intolerable confinement and was rehabilitated; during the years of the "thaw" it became famous, and during the years of "stagnation" it disappeared; survived cancer and was healed; became a Nobel laureate and was expelled from Russia ....

These events in his life speak of how significant and influential Solzhenitsyn was for Russia. His literature is dedicated to the truth - deep, denigrating and whitewashing nothing and no one, the goal of his literary activity has always been so that some can speak the truth, while others can finally hear it.

Thanks to his works, young people have the opportunity to thoroughly understand the atmosphere of lack of will and despair that reigned in Russia. Solzhenitsyn's goal was not to create himself as a writer, but to convey the truth to people in the most effective way.

The writer's memoirs, which are revealed in the book "Butting a Calf with an Oak", are devoted to a real view of those things in Solzhenitsyn's biography that were well known to the public. The book describes in detail the situation with the Nobel Prize.

Then the writer was afraid to leave the USSR, as he could lose his citizenship, and if that happened, he would not be able to continue to fight in his homeland for justice and the triumph of truth. Because of this, the receipt of the award was postponed, and Solzhenitsyn's position in Russia only worsened ... But despite everything, this brave and talented man continued to fight for his own convictions and was not afraid of persecution and restrictions on the part of the authorities.