Mot love corrected read the full content. comic opera

Quite symptomatic is the practical exhaustion of most of the characters in Mota, Corrected with Love and The Squirrel by a pure act of ideological or everyday speaking, not accompanied on stage by any other action. The word spoken aloud on the stage absolutely coincides with its carrier; his role is subject to the general semantics of his word. Thus, the word is, as it were, embodied in the human figure of the heroes of Lukin's comedies. Moreover, in the oppositions of vice and virtue, talkativeness is characteristic not only of protagonist characters, but also of antagonist characters. That is, the very act of speaking appears in Lukin as variable in its moral characteristics, and talkativeness can be a property of both virtue and vice.

This hesitation of a general nature, sometimes humiliating, sometimes elevating its carriers, is especially noticeable in the comedy “Mot, corrected by love”, where a pair of dramatic antagonists - Good-Hearted and Spiteful - equally divides large monologues facing the audience. And these rhetorical declarations are based on the same supporting motives of a crime against a moral norm, repentance and remorse, but with a diametrically opposite moral sense:

Dobroserdov. ‹…› Everything that an unfortunate person can feel, everything I feel, but I suffer more from him. He only has to endure the persecution of fate, and I have to repent and gnaw my conscience ... Since the time I parted with my parent, I have lived incessantly in vices. I deceived, dissembled, pretended ‹…›, and now I suffer worthily for that. ‹…› But I am very happy that I recognized Cleopatra. By her instructions I turned to virtue (30).

Zloradov. I’ll go and tell her [the princess] all his [Dobroserdov’s] intentions, I’ll bring him to extreme grief, and immediately, without wasting time, I’ll open up that I myself fell in love with her a long time ago. She, enraged, will despise him, but prefer me. It will surely come true. ‹…› Repentance and remorse are completely unknown to me, and I am not one of those simpletons whom future life and hellish torments are terrifying (40).

The emotional pattern of the action of the so-called "comedy" is determined by a completely tragic series of concepts: some comedy characters are tormented by despair and longing, complain, repent and rage; they are tormented and gnawed by conscience, they consider their misfortune to be retribution for guilt; their permanent state is tears and weeping. Others feel pity and compassion for them, serving as motives for their actions. For the image of the protagonist Dobroserdov, such undoubtedly tragic verbal motifs as the motifs of death and fate are very relevant:

Stepanida. So that's why Dobroserdov is a dead man? (24);Dobroserdov. ‹…› the persecution of fate must endure ‹…› (30); Tell me, should I live or die? (31); Oh fate! Reward me with such happiness ‹…› (33); Oh, merciless fate! (34); Oh fate! I must thank you and complain about your severity (44); My heart is trembling and, of course, a new blow portends. Oh fate! Do not spare me and fight quickly! (45); A rather angry fate drives me away. Oh, wrathful fate! (67); ‹…› it is best, forgetting the offense and vengeance, to make an end to my frantic life. (68); Oh fate! You even added to my grief, so that he would be a witness to my shame (74).

And quite in the traditions of Russian tragedy, how this genre took shape in the 1750s-1760s. under the pen of Sumarokov, the fatal clouds that have gathered over the head of a virtuous character fall with just punishment on the vicious one:

Zloradov. Oh, perverse fate! (78); Good-hearted-smaller. May he receive a worthy retribution for his villainy (80).

The preference for words over action is not just a flaw in Lukin's dramatic technique; it is also a reflection of the hierarchy of reality in the enlightenment consciousness of the 18th century, and an orientation to the already existing in Russian literature artistic tradition. Publicistic in its original message and seeking the eradication of vice and the planting of virtue, Lukin's comedy, with its emphasized ethical and social pathos, resurrects on a new round literary development traditions of Russian syncretic preaching-word. art word, put at the service of intentions foreign to him, it is unlikely that Lukin accidentally acquired a shade of rhetoric and oratory in Lukin's comedyography and theory - this is quite obvious in his direct appeal to the reader and viewer.

It is no coincidence that among the virtues of an ideal comedian, along with “graceful qualities”, “extensive imagination” and “important study”, Lukin in the preface to “Motu” also names the “gift of eloquence”, and the style of individual fragments of this preface is clearly oriented to the laws of oratory. This is especially noticeable in the examples of constant appeals to the reader, in enumerations and repetitions, in numerous rhetorical questions and exclamations, and, finally, in imitation of the written text of the preface under the spoken word, sounding speech:

Imagine, reader. ‹…› imagine a crowd of people, often more than a hundred people. ‹…› Some of them are sitting at the table, others are walking around the room, but all of them are constructing punishments worthy of various inventions to beat their rivals. ‹…› Here are the reasons for their gathering! And you, dear reader, imagining this, say impartially, is there at least a spark of good morals, conscience and humanity? Of course not! But will you still hear? (8).

However, the most curious thing is that Lukin attracts the entire arsenal of expressive means of oratorical speech in the most vivid moral descriptive fragment of the preface, in which he gives a kind of genre picture from the life of card players: “Here live description this community and the practiced exercises in it” (10). And it is hardly by chance that in this seemingly bizarre alliance of high rhetorical and low everyday writing stylistic traditions, the national idea beloved by Lukin reappears:

Others are like the pallor of the dead ‹…›; others with bloody eyes - terrible furies; others with despondency of spirit - criminals, drawn to execution; others with an unusual blush - a cranberry ‹…› but no! Better and Russian comparison leave! (9).

So again, the theoretical antagonist Sumarokova Lukin actually approaches his literary opponent in practical attempts to express national idea in the dialogue of older Russian aesthetic traditions and attitudes of satirical life writing and oratory. And if Sumarokov in The Guardian (1764-1765) for the first time tried to stylistically differentiate the world of things and the world of ideas and push them into conflict, then Lukin, parallel to him and simultaneously with him, begins to find out how the aesthetic arsenal of one literary series is suitable for recreating realities another. Oratory speaking in order to recreate the material world image and everyday life, pursuing the lofty goals of moralizing and edification, is the result of such a crossing of traditions. And if in “Mota” Lukin mainly uses oratorical speech in order to create a reliable everyday coloring of the action, then in “Schepetilnik” we see the opposite combination: everyday plasticity is used for rhetorical purposes.

Remarks in the texts of Lukin's comedies, as a rule, mark the addressing of speech ("brother", "princess", "worker", "Schepetilnik", "nephew", "aside", etc.), its emotional richness ("angry", “with annoyance”, “with humiliation”, “weeping”) and movement actors on the scene with the registration of a gesture (“pointing to Zloradov”, “kissing her hands”, “falling to his knees”, “makes various gestures and expresses his extreme confusion and frustration”).

As O. M. Freidenberg noted, a person in tragedy is passive; if he is active, then his activity is guilt and error, leading him to disaster; in comedy, he must be active, and if he is still passive, another tries for him (the servant is his double). - Freidenberg O. M. The origin of literary intrigue // Proceedings on sign systems VI. Tartu, 1973. (308) S.510-511.
Wed according to Roland Barthes: the sphere of language is “the only sphere to which tragedy belongs: in tragedy one never dies, for one speaks all the time. And vice versa - leaving the stage for the hero is one way or another tantamount to death.<...>For in that purely linguistic world, which is tragedy, action appears as the ultimate incarnation of impurity. - Bart Roland. Rasinovsky man. // Bart Roland. Selected works. M., 1989. S. 149,151.

The comedy is preceded by a lengthy author's preface, which says that most writers take to the pen for three reasons. The first is the desire to become famous; the second is to get rich; the third is the satisfaction of one's own base feelings, such as envy and the desire to take revenge on someone. Lukin, on the other hand, seeks to benefit his compatriots and hopes that the reader will treat his work indulgently. He also expresses gratitude to the actors involved in his play, considering

That they all have the right to share the praise with the author.

He leaves, but follows Vasily into the master's bedroom, who was awakened by loud voices. Seeing Dokukin, Dobroserdov consoles him by informing him of his marriage to the local mistress, and asks him to wait a bit, since the princess promised to give such a sum of money for the wedding that she would be enough to repay the debt. Dobroserdov goes to the princess, but Dokukin and Vasily remain. The servant explains to the creditor that no one should see him in the princess's house - otherwise Dobroserdov's debts and ruin will become known. The lender (creditor) leaves, muttering to himself that he will make inquiries with Zloradov.

The maid Stepanida, who appeared with the princess's half, manages to notice Dokukin and asks Vasily about him. The servant tells Stepanida in detail about the circumstances due to which his master, Dobroserdov, found himself in distress. At the age of fourteen, his father sent him to Petersburg in the care of his brother, a frivolous man. The young man neglected science and indulged in entertainment, making friends with Zloradov, with whom he settled together after his uncle died. In a month he was completely ruined, and in four he owed thirty thousand to various merchants, including Dokukin. Zloradov not only helped squander the estate and borrowed money, but also quarreled Dobroserdov with another uncle. The latter decided to leave the inheritance to the younger brother of Dobroserdov, with whom he left for the village.

There is only one way to beg for the uncle's forgiveness - by marrying a prudent and virtuous girl, whom Dobroserdov considers Cleopatra, the princess's niece. Basil asks Stepanida to persuade Cleopatra to run away with the Good-Hearted Taik. The maid does not believe that the well-behaved Cleopatra will agree, but she would like to save her mistress from her aunt-princess, who spends her niece's money on her whims and outfits. Dobroserdov appears, who also asks Stepanida for help. The maid leaves, and the princess appears, not hiding her attention to young man. She invites him to her room to get dressed for the upcoming exit in his presence. Not without difficulty, Dobroserdov, embarrassed by the need to deceive the princess who is in love with him, seems so busy that he happily avoids the need to be present at the princess's toilet, all the more so to accompany her to visit. Overjoyed, Dobroserdov sends Vasily to Zloradov, his true friend, to open up to him and lend him money to escape. Vasily believes that Zloradov is not capable of good deeds, but he fails to dissuade Dobroserdov.

Dobroserdov does not find a place for himself in the expectation of Stepanida and curses himself for the recklessness of former days - disobedience and extravagance. Stepanida appears and reports that she did not have time to explain herself to Cleopatra. She advises Dobroserdov to write a letter to the girl with a story about her feelings. Delighted, Dobroserdov leaves, and Stepanida reflects on the reasons for her participation in the fate of the lovers and comes to the conclusion that the point is her love for Vasily, whose kindness is more important to her than the unsightly appearance of an elderly age.

The princess appears and lashes out at Stepanida with abuse. The maid justifies herself by saying that she wanted to serve the mistress and came to find out something about Dobroserdov. The young man, who has appeared from his room, at first does not notice the princess, but when he sees her, he imperceptibly thrusts the letter to the maid. Both women leave, and Dobroserdov remains waiting for Vasily.

Stepanida suddenly returns with sad news. It turns out that the princess went to visit her daughter-in-law in order to sign documents (in line) for Cleopatra's dowry. She wants to marry her off to the wealthy breeder Srebrolyubov, who undertakes not only not to demand the prescribed dowry, but also gives the princess a stone house and ten thousand in addition. The young man is indignant, and the maid promises him her help.

Vasily returns and tells about the vile act of Zloradov, who incited Dokukin (the creditor) to immediately claim the debt from Dobroserdov, since the debtor intends to hide from the city. Kind-hearted does not believe, although some doubt settles in his soul. Therefore, at first coldly, and then with the same simplicity of heart, he tells the appeared Zloradov about everything that happened. Zloradov feignedly promises to help get the necessary three hundred rubles from the princess, realizing to himself that Cleopatra's wedding with the merchant will be very beneficial to him. To do this, you should write a letter to the princess asking for a loan in order to pay the card debt and take him to the house where the princess is staying. Dobroserdov agrees and, forgetting Stepanida's warnings not to leave the room, leaves to write a letter. Vasily is indignant because of the gullibility of his master.

Stepanida, who has reappeared, informs Dobroserdov that Cleopatra has read the letter, and although it cannot be said that she decided to run away, she does not hide her love for the young man. Suddenly Panfil appears - a servant younger brother Dobroserdov, sent secretly with a letter. It turns out that the uncle was ready to forgive Dobroserdov, as he learned from his younger brother about his intention to marry a virtuous girl. But the neighbors hastened to report the debauchery of the young man, allegedly squandering Cleopatra's estate along with her guardian, the princess. Uncle was furious, and there is only one way: immediately come with the girl to the village and explain the true state of affairs.

Dobroserdov, in desperation, tries to delay the decision of the magistrate with the help of the lawyer Prolazin. But none of the methods of a solicitor suits him, since he does not agree either to renounce his signature on bills of exchange, or to give bribes, and even more so to solder creditors and steal bills, accusing his servant of this. Having learned about the departure of Dobroserdov, creditors appear one after another and demand the repayment of the debt. Only one Pravdolyubov, who also has the bills of the ill-fated Dobroserdov, is ready to wait until better times.

Zloradov comes, pleased with that how he managed to circle the princess around his finger. Now, if it is possible to adjust the sudden appearance of the princess during Dobroserdov’s date with Cleopatra, the girl is threatened with a monastery, her beloved prison, all the money will go to Zloradov. Dobroserdov appears and, having received money from Zloradov, again recklessly dedicates him to all the details of his conversation with Cleopatra. Zloradov leaves. Cleopatra appears with her maid. During an ardent explanation, the princess appears, accompanied by Zloradov. Only Stepanida was not taken aback, but the young man and his servant were amazed by her speech. Rushing to the princess, the servant reveals Dobroserdov's plan for the immediate escape of her niece and asks the princess's permission to take the girl to the monastery, where their relative serves as abbess. The enraged princess entrusts the ungrateful niece to the maid, and they leave. Dobroserdov tries to follow them, but the princess stops him and showers him with reproaches of black ingratitude. The young man is trying to find support from an imaginary friend of Zloradov, but he opens his true face, accusing the young man of debauchery. The princess demands from Dobroserdov respect for her future husband. Zloradov and the overripe coquette leave, and Dobroserdov rushes with belated regrets to his servant.

A poor widow appears with her daughter and reminds the young man of the debt she has been waiting for for a year and a half. Dobroserdov without hesitation gives the widow three hundred rubles brought from Princess Zloradov. After the widow leaves, he asks Vasily to sell all his clothes and underwear in order to pay off the widow. Vasily offers freedom. Vasily refuses, explaining this by the fact that he will not leave the young man in such hard time, especially since he moved away from a dissolute life. Meanwhile, lenders and clerks, invited by Zloradov, are gathering near the house.

Suddenly, Dobroserdov's younger brother appears. The older brother becomes even more desperate because the younger one has witnessed his shame. But things take an unexpected turn. It turns out that their uncle died and left his estate to his older brother, forgiving all his sins. The younger Dobroserdov is ready to immediately pay off debts to creditors and pay for the work of clerks from the magistrate. One thing upsets Dobroserdov Sr. - the absence of the beloved Cleopatra. But she is here. It turns out that Stepanida deceived the princess and took the girl not to the monastery, but to the village to her lover's uncle. On the way they met their younger brother and told him everything. Zloradov was trying to get out of this situation, but, having failed, began to threaten Dobroserdov. However, creditors who have lost future interest from the wealthy debtor present Zloradov's bills to the clerks. The princess repents of her actions. Stepanida and Vasily get their freedom, but they are going to continue to serve their masters. Vasily also makes a speech about the fact that all the girls should be likened to Cleopatra in good manners, “outdated coquettes” would refuse affectation, like the princess, and “the god of villainy does not leave without punishment.”

Option 2

The comedy begins with a very strange prologue. It gives three reasons why writers get creative. These include: the thirst for fame, money, and the third reason is the desire to satisfy base needs. The author himself wants to benefit the reader and thanks the actors who play in his play. One Moscow princess is in love with one of the Dobroserdov brothers. His servant reflects on the life of his master, who lives in fear of prison.

Dokukin comes for his duty. Dobroserdov assures that by marrying the princess, he will return the entire debt. Vasily convinces Dokukin not to tell anyone about the plight of the owner. The maid of the princess noticed the departing guest and asked Vasily about him. He tells her everything. As having accumulated debts, Dobroserdov quarreled with his uncle, and reconciliation is possible only on the condition that he marries a decent girl, such as Cleopatra, the princess's niece. Vasily convinces the maid that Dobroserdov must run away with Cleopatra. Dobroserdov also asks to help Stepanid. Vasily goes to Zloradov to borrow money from him to escape.

Stepanida offers to write a letter about her feelings to Cleopatra. Dobroserdov leaves, and the maid comes to the conclusion that she herself is in love with Vasily. The princess scolds the maid, but she justifies herself. Dobroserdov appeared imperceptibly and handed the letter to Stepanida. Later, she appears with bad news: her aunt wants to marry Cleopatra to the breeder Srebrolyubov. Returning Vasily tells how Zloradov himself persuaded Dokukin to demand a debt, telling him that he wants to leave the city. Not believing this, Dobroserdov himself talks to Zloradov and he allegedly promises to give three hundred rubles. Stepanida tells Dobroserdov that Cleopatra finally read the letter, and it turned out that their feelings are mutual.

Panfil, the servant of the second brother Dobroserdov, brings another letter. The uncle is ready to forgive him, but the neighbors have slandered the young man, and the uncle demands an immediate arrival with the girl for an explanation. Having learned about the imminent departure, creditors frequented Dobronravov. Zloradov wants to frame Dobroserdov in front of the princess and take all the money for himself. Cleopatra arrives with a maid and an explanation takes place. At this moment, the princess appears. The maid, not at a loss, lays out all the plans of the lovers and offers to take the girl to the monastery. Zloradov reveals Dobrserdov's true face.

The exit was found unexpectedly. The uncle of the brothers died and left all his savings to his elder brother. Another good news: Stepanida hid Cleopatra with her uncle in the village. The princess repented, and Stepanida and Vasily are free.

Summary Mot, lovingly corrected by Lukin

"COMEDY OF MORALS" IN THE WORKS OF V. I. LUKIN (1737-1794)

Thus, the comedic character Neumolkov, who was present at the premiere of the comedy "The Bewitched Belt", in his real status turns out to be quite equal to those viewers who were sitting in the St. Petersburg theater on the evening of October 27, 1764. theater hall. On the stage - original characters, in theater chairs - their real prototypes. Flesh and blood people easily move on stage as mirror reflections; the reflected characters just as easily descend from the stage into the hall; they have one life circle, one common reality. Text and life stand against each other - life looks in the mirror of the stage, Russian comedy is aware of itself as a mirror of Russian life. Perhaps it is precisely because of this visibility that another aspect of its relevance for the Russian literary tradition comes to the forefront of the mirror comedy worldview: moralizing, the social functionality of comedy is the nerve of the “prepositional direction” and the higher meaning for which it took shape as an aesthetic theory:

Chistoserdov. Several times you saw comedies and I was glad that they were for you.<...>appeared in their true form. You did not regard them as a delight to the eyes, but as a benefit to your heart and mind ( "Squealer", 192-193).

The passion of the first Russian spectators, who got into the taste of theatrical performances, to see in the performance the same life that they led outside the theater, and in the characters of the comedy - complete people, was so strong that it provoked an incredibly early act of self-consciousness in Russian comedy and gave rise to the phenomenon of the author's distrust of his text and the insufficiency artistic text by itself to express the whole complex of thoughts that are embedded in it. All this required auxiliary elements explaining the text. Lukin's preface-comments accompanying each artistic publication in the "Works and Translations" of 1765 bring comedy as a genre closer to journalism as a form of creativity. The pervasive motive of all Lukin's prefaces is "benefit for the heart and mind", the ideological purpose of the comedy, designed to reflect social life with the sole purpose of eradicating vice and present the ideal of virtue in order to introduce it into public life. The latter is also a mirror act in its own way, only the image in it precedes the object. This is what Lukin motivates comedic creativity:

<...>I took up my pen, following only one heartfelt impulse, which makes me look for ridicule of vices and my own in virtue for the pleasure and benefit of my fellow citizens, giving them an innocent and amusing pastime. (Foreword to comedy "Mot, corrected by love", 6.)

The same motive of the direct moral and social benefit of the spectacle determines in Lukin's understanding the goal of comedy as a work of art. The aesthetic effect that Lukin conceived as the result of his work had, for him, above all, an ethical expression; the aesthetic result - the text as such with its artistic features - was secondary and, as it were, accidental. Characteristic in this respect is the dual orientation of comedy and the theory of the comedy genre. On the one hand, all of Lukin's texts aim to change the existing reality towards morality:

<...>By ridicule of the Roughneck, it was necessary to hope for correction in people who were prone to this weakness, that in those who had not yet completely exterminated good manners, and followed<...>(Foreword to comedy "Riddle", 114).

On the other hand, this negative attitude towards correcting vice by accurately reflecting it is complemented by a directly opposite task: by reflecting a non-existent ideal in a comedic character, comedy seeks to cause by this act the emergence of a real object in real life. In essence, this means that the transformative function of comedy, traditionally recognized for this genre by European aesthetics, coexists with Lukin and directly creative:

Some condemners who armed themselves with me told me that we had never had such servants before. It will, I told them, but Basil was made by me for this, in order to produce others like him, and he should serve as a model. (Foreword to comedy "Mot, corrected by love",12.)

It is easy to see that the goals of comedy realized in this way organize the direct relationship of art as a reflected reality with reality as such, according to the already well-known Russian literature of modern times, the installation models of satire and ode: negative (eradication of vice) and affirmative (demonstration of the ideal). Thus, aesthetics is in the background of Lukin's ideology and ethics: the ubiquitous genre traditions of satire and ode. It is only now that these previously isolated tendencies are discovering the desire to merge into one genre - the genre of comedy. The rapid self-determination of comedy in Russian social life, accompanied by the theoretical self-consciousness of the genre as a way of self-determination in the ideological Russian life, caused consequences, although of a twofold kind, but closely related to each other. Firstly, comedy, which has become part of the national social life with its own place in its hierarchy (the main means of social education), immediately caused a parallel process of intensive expansion of this very life into its own framework. Hence the second inevitable consequence: national life, which for the first time became the object of comedic attention, entailed the theoretical crystallization of the idea of national Russian comedy, which is especially paradoxical against the backdrop of the Western European genesis of the plots and sources of his comedies, persistently emphasized by Lukin. One's own, however, can be recognized as such only against the background of someone else's. So, for example, Sumarokov's comedies aroused Lukin's sharp rejection of their obvious international plot and thematic realities. However, against the background of these realities, the national originality of the genre model of Sumarokov's comedies is especially obvious. Lukin's comedy shows the inverse correlation of these same aesthetic categories: realities are his own, but the genre model is someone else's. The emphasized opposition of comedy, “inclined to Russian customs”, to foreign, which served as its stronghold, which makes up the whole meaning of the term “preposition”, automatically highlights the category of national specifics of life and genre, which reflects this life. But at the same time, the actual aesthetics of Lukin’s comedy, namely, the theory of “transposition” and “inclination to our mores”, that is, should be considered as such. saturation of the original text with national everyday realities, since this is what distinguishes the Russian “output text” from the European “input text”, is secondary in relation to ideology and ethics. Attention to national signs of life is dictated not by artistic interest in this very life, but " top content» comedy, extraneous purpose:

<...>I will incline all comic theatrical compositions to our customs, because the audience does not receive any correction from a comedy in other people's manners. They think that it is not them, but strangers who are ridiculed.” (Foreword to comedy "Rewarded Persistence" 117.)

The result is not so much a comedy "in our manners" as the idea of a comedy "in our manners", which is yet to appear. But such a situation, when the idea, the idea of what should be, is primary and ahead of its embodiment in a material object, completely corresponds to the ideas of the 18th century. about the hierarchy of reality. That specific and deeply national-original turn that the concept of “our morals” acquired under Lukin’s pen had a decisive influence, first of all, on poetics, and then on the problematics and formal characteristics of the comedy genre, serving its aesthetic transformation in a fundamentally unconventional structure already beyond Lukin's system of comedy, Fonvizin, his successors and heirs. Obviously, the central concept in Lukin's comedy theory and practice is the concept of "our morals", which constitutes the shift between "alien" and "ours", perceived as the national specificity of the Russian theater. Lukin so firmly managed to introduce the category of “our morals” into the aesthetic consciousness of his era that according to the criterion of compliance with “mores”, they were evaluated until the end of the 18th century. all the notable comedic innovations. (Compare the review of N.I. Panin about the comedy "The Brigadier" "<...>in our manners the first comedy.") Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to find out what exactly Lukin meant by the word "morals", which concentrated in itself the whole meaning of his comedic innovation. And at the very first attempt to define the concept of "our morals" according to Lukin's declarative statements, an amazing thing is revealed, namely, that the traditional understanding of the category of "mores" is only partly relevant for Lukin. Actually, only a clerk with a marriage contract, who angered Lukin in Sumarokov's first comedy with an unnatural alliance of a native Russian word with an overly European function, falls into this series of all his theoretical statements about “our morals”:

<..>A Russian clerk, having come to any kind of house, will ask: “Is there an apartment of Monsieur Orontes here?” “Here,” they will say to him, “but what do you want from him?” - "Wedding to write a contract."<...>This will turn the head of a knowledgeable viewer. In genuine Russian comedy, the name Orontovo, given to the old man, and the writing of the marriage contract to the clerk are not at all typical (118-119).

It is characteristic that already in this passage, falling under the same category of “morals”, the Russian clerk in the function of a European notary is adjacent to the “name of Oronto, given to the old man” - a name, that is, a word, especially clearly not Russian in meaning, neither in sound nor in dramatic semantic load. All Lukin's widespread statements about the "inclination" of Western European originals "to our customs" ultimately run into the problem of anthroponyms and toponyms. It is in this category of words that Lukin sees the concentrate of the concepts of “national” and “mores”. So the plenipotentiary representative of Russian customs and Russian characters in the "genuine Russian comedy" becomes the word emphasized by its exclusive belonging to the national culture:

It always seemed unusual to me to hear foreign sayings in such writings, which, by depicting our morals, should correct not so much the general vices of the whole world, as the vices that are part of our people; and I have repeatedly heard from some spectators that it happens not only to their reason, but also to their ears, if faces, although somewhat resembling our customs, are called Clitander, Dorant, Citalida and Kladina in the presentation and speak speeches that do not signify our behavior.<...> There are also many, even the smallest expressions: for example, I recently arrived from Marseille, or I walked in Tulleria, I was in Versailles, I saw the viscomte, I sat with the marquise, and other foreign things.<...> And what connection will there be if the characters are named like this: Geront, the clerk, Fonticidius, Ivan, Fineta, Crispin and the notary. I cannot penetrate where these thoughts can come from in order to make such an essay. This case is truly strange; and even stranger, to consider it correct (111-113,119).

Perhaps, this apology of the Russian word as the main pictorial means of Russian life was embodied most vividly in the preface to the comedy "Schepetilnik", written specifically about the native Russian word and its pictorial possibilities:

I am writing this preface in defense of a single word<...>, and must certainly protect the name given to this comedy.<...>with what word to explain in our language the French word Bijoutier, and did not find any other means than, entering into the essence of that trade from which the French got its name, to understand our trades and consider whether there is a similar one to it, that I am without a great Labor found and here I offer.<...>And so, having to foreign words, our language is ugly, a complete disgust, I called the comedy "Schepeter"<...> (189-190).

And if Russian comedians even before Lukin happened to play with the clash of barbarisms with native Russian words as a laughing device, a caricature of Russian vice (cf. the macaronic speech of Sumarok's gallomaniacs), then Lukin for the first time not only begins to consciously use a stylistically and nationally colored word as characterological and evaluative reception, but also draws special attention to it from the public. In the comedy Mot, Corrected by Love, a note was made to the Princess’s remark: “You will stand by my toilet”: “A coquette speaks a foreign word, which is decent for her, but if she didn’t speak, then of course it would be Russian” (28 ). We meet the same kind of note in the comedy "Schepeter":

Polydor If and where there are two or three guests like us, then the company is not revered as a small company. All foreign words say the patterns to which they attach; and Shchepetilnik, Chistoserdov, and Nephew always speak Russian, except from time to time they repeat the word of some idler (202).

Thus, the word is put forward at the center of the poetics of Lukin's comedic "additions" not only in its natural function building material drama, but also as a signal of additional meanings. From material and means, the word becomes an independent end. A halo of associativity arises over its direct meaning, expanding its internal capacity and allowing the word to express something more than its generally recognized lexical meaning. It is with the additional purpose of the word that Lukin connected the poetics of meaningful surnames, which he was the first to introduce into comedyography not just as a separate technique, but as a universal law of character nomination. Sometimes the concentration of Russian words in meaningful surnames, names of cities and streets, references to cultural events in Russian life, turns out to be so great in Lukin’s “additions” that the life-like coloring of Russian life they create conflicts with the content of the comedic action unfolding against this Russian background, the nature of which is determined by the Western European mentality and which is not subjected to significant changes in Lukin's comedies "inclined to Russian customs". Just as the idea of “our morals” was inevitably and clearly indicated against the background of an “alien” source text, “inclined” by Russian words to Russian customs, so the general points of discrepancy between “alien” and “our” were outlined against this verbal background with extreme relief. . “Alien” is emphasized by “ours” no less than “ours” by “alien”, and in this case, “alien” is revealed primarily as the unsuitability of the constructive foundations of the Western European comedy type of action to reflect Russian life and its meanings. The opposition of "one's own" and "alien" posed for Russian comedy not only the problem of national content, but also the task of finding a specific form for expressing this content. The desire expressed by Lukin in a direct declaration to orient his translated comedy texts to the Russian way of life (“The French, the British, the Germans and other peoples who have theaters always adhere to their models;<...>why should we not hold on to our own?” - 116) automatically entailed not formalized in the word, but literally hovering over "Works and translations" the idea of a national-peculiar comedy structure, in which the nature of the conflict, the content and nature of the action, typology artistic imagery would acquire correspondence with Russian aesthetic thinking and Russian mentality. And although in full the problem of the national-peculiar genre form of Russian comedy will find its solution only in the work of the mature Fonvizin, i.e. already outside the "prepositional direction", however, Lukin, in his "inclined to Russian mores" comedies, managed to outline the prospects for this solutions. Mainly in his comedyography, further experiments on the unification of everyday and ideological world images within the same genre are noteworthy. In this sense, Lukin's comedies are a link between the comedy of Sumarokov and Fonvizin. First of all, the composition of Lukin's collection "Works and Translations" attracts attention. The first volume included the comedies "Mot, Corrected by Love" and "Riddle", which were presented in one theatrical evening, the second - "Rewarded Persistence" and "Schepeter"; both comedies never saw theater stage. In addition, both volumes are arranged according to the same principle. The first positions in them are occupied by large five-act comedies, according to Lukin's classification, "forming deeds", which is also reflected in typologically close titles: "Mot, Corrected by Love" and "Rewarded Constancy". But as if leaning toward moralizing, comedies close in form turn out to be completely different in essence. If "Mot, corrected by love" is a comedy "characteristic, pitiful and filled with noble thoughts" (11), then "Rewarded constancy" is a typical light or, according to Lukin, "funny" comedy of intrigue. On the second positions in both parts - small one-act "characteristic" comedies, "Rogue" and "Schepeter". But again, with a formal identity, there is an aesthetic opposition: “Riddlebird” (a pair of “Motu, corrected by love”) is a typical “funny” comedy of intrigue, “The Whisperer” (a pair of “Rewarded Constancy”) is a serious loveless comedy with a clear satirical accusatory and apologetic moral task. As a result, the publication as a whole is framed by serious comedies (“Mot, Corrected by Love” and “The Scribbler”), which are connected by semantic rhyme, and funny ones are placed inside, also echoing each other. Thus, “The Works and Translations of Vladimir Lukin” appear to its reader as a distinctly cyclical structure, organized according to the principle of a mirror change of properties in its constituent microcontexts: comedies alternate according to the signs of volume (large - small), ethical pathos (serious - funny) and genre typology (a comedy of character is a comedy of intrigue). At the same time, the macrocontext of the cycle as a whole is characterized ring composition, in which the final is a variation on the theme of the beginning. So the properties of the comedic world image, which will have a long life in the genre model of Russian high comedy, are found, if not in a single comedy text, then in the totality of Lukin's comedy texts. Lukin arrives in other ways at the same result as Sumarokov the comedian. For both, the comedy genre is not particularly pure: if Sumarokov's comedies gravitate toward a tragic denouement, Lukin is very inclined towards the "tearful comedy" genre. In both, the split between the genre form of comedy and its content is obvious, only in Sumarokov the Russian model of the genre is disguised by the international verbal realities of the text, while in Lukin, on the contrary, the national verbal flavor does not fit well in the European genre form. Both systems of comedyography cannot claim to be close to national public and private life, but in both, against the background of equally obvious borrowings, the same elements of the future structure emerge equally clearly: “higher content” is an extraneous goal that subordinates comedy as an aesthetic phenomenon to a higher ethical one. and social tasks; attraction to a holistic universal worldview, expressed in an obvious tendency to cyclization of comedy texts.

Poetics of the comedy "Mot, corrected by love": roles speaking character The sharpness of Lukin's literary intuition (far exceeding his modest creative possibilities) is emphasized by the fact that in most cases he chooses texts where a loquacious, talkative or preaching character occupies a central place as a source for his "additions". This increased attention to the independent dramaturgical possibilities of the act of speaking in its plot, everyday writing or ideological functions is an unconditional evidence that Lukin was characterized by a sense of the specifics of “our mores”: Russian enlighteners all without exception attached the word as such to fateful significance. Quite symptomatic is the practical exhaustion of most of the characters in Mota, Corrected with Love and The Squirrel by a pure act of ideological or everyday speaking, not accompanied on stage by any other action. The word spoken aloud on the stage absolutely coincides with its carrier; his role is subject to the general semantics of his word. Thus, the word is, as it were, embodied in the human figure of the heroes of Lukin's comedies. Moreover, in the oppositions of vice and virtue, talkativeness is characteristic not only of protagonist characters, but also of antagonist characters. That is, the very act of speaking appears in Lukin as variable in its moral characteristics, and talkativeness can be a property of both virtue and vice. This fluctuation of a general nature, sometimes humiliating, sometimes elevating its carriers, is especially noticeable in the comedy "Mot, corrected by love", where a pair of dramatic antagonists - Good-Hearted and Spiteful - equally divides large monologues facing the audience. And these rhetorical declarations are based on the same basic motives of a crime against a moral norm, repentance and remorse, but with a diametrically opposite moral meaning:

Dobroserdov.<...>Everything that an unfortunate person can feel, everything I feel, but I suffer more from him. He only has to endure the persecution of fate, and I have to endure remorse and gnaw of conscience ... Since the time I parted with my parent, I have lived incessantly in vices. deceived, deceived, pretended<...>and now I suffer for it with dignity. <...> But I am very happy that I recognized Cleopatra. By her instructions I turned to virtue (30). Zloradov. I’ll go and tell her [the princess] all his [Dobroserdov’s] intentions, I’ll bring him to extreme grief, and immediately, without wasting time, I’ll open up that I myself fell in love with her a long time ago. She, enraged, will despise him, but prefer me. It will surely come true.<...>Repentance and pangs of conscience are completely unknown to me, and I am not one of those simpletons who are horrified by the future life and hellish torments (40).

The straightforwardness with which the characters declare their moral character from the first appearance on the stage makes us see in Lukin a zealous student not only of Detouche, but also of the "father of Russian tragedy" Sumarokov. In combination with the complete absence of a comic principle in Mota, such straightforwardness prompts us to see in Lukin's work not so much a "tearful comedy" as a "petty-bourgeois tragedy." After all, the psychological and conceptual verbal leitmotifs of the play are oriented precisely towards tragic poetics. The emotional picture of the action of the so-called "comedy" is determined by a completely tragic series of concepts: some comedy characters tormented by despair And longing, complain, repent And are restless; their torments And gnaws conscience, his misfortune they revere retribution for guilt; their permanent state tears And cry. Others test for them a pity And compassion, that motivate their actions. For the image of the protagonist Dobroserdov, such undoubtedly tragic verbal motifs as the motifs of death and fate are very relevant:

Stepanida. So that's why Dobroserdov is a dead man? (24); Dobroserdov.<...>persecution of fate must endure<...>(thirty); Tell me, should I live or die? (31); Oh fate! Reward me with such happiness<...>(33); Oh, merciless fate! (34); Oh fate! I must thank you and complain about your severity (44); My heart is trembling and, of course, a new blow portends. Oh fate! Do not spare me and fight quickly! (45); A rather angry fate drives me away. Oh, wrathful fate! (67);<...>best of all, forgetting offense and revenge, make an end to my frantic life. (68); Oh fate! You even added to my grief, so that he would be a witness to my shame (74).

Zloradov. Oh, perverse fate! (78); Kindhearted-smaller. May he receive a worthy retribution for his villainy (80).

Such a concentration of tragic motifs in the text, which has the genre definition of "comedy", is also reflected in the stage behavior of the characters, devoid of any physical action, with the exception of traditional falling to their knees and attempts to draw a sword (62-63, 66). But if Dobroserdov, as the main positive hero of a tragedy, albeit a petty-bourgeois one, by his very role is supposed to be passive, redeemed in dramatic action by speaking akin to a tragic recitation, then Zloradov is an active person leading an intrigue against the central character. It becomes all the more noticeable against the background of traditional ideas about the role that Lukin prefers to endow his negative character not so much with action as with informative speaking, which can anticipate, describe and summarize the action, but the action itself is not equivalent. The preference for words over action is not just a flaw in Lukin's dramatic technique; it is also a reflection of the hierarchy of reality in the enlightenment consciousness of the 18th century, and an orientation towards the artistic tradition already existing in Russian literature. Journalistic in its original message and seeking the eradication of vice and the inculcation of virtue, Lukin's comedy, with its emphasized ethical and social pathos, resurrects the tradition of Russian syncretic preaching-words at a new round of literary development. The artistic word, put at the service of intentions that are foreign to it, hardly accidentally acquired a shade of rhetoric and oratory in Lukin's comedyography and theory - this is quite obvious in his direct appeal to the reader and viewer. It is no coincidence that among the virtues of an ideal comedian, along with “graceful qualities”, “extensive imagination” and “important study”, Lukin in the preface to “Motu” also names the “gift of eloquence”, and the style of individual fragments of this preface is clearly oriented to the laws of oratory. This is especially noticeable in the examples of constant appeals to the reader, in enumerations and repetitions, in numerous rhetorical questions and exclamations, and, finally, in imitation of the written text of the preface under the spoken word, sounding speech:

Imagine, reader.<...>imagine a crowd of people, often more than a hundred people.<...>Some of them are sitting at the table, others are walking around the room, but all of them are constructing punishments worthy of various inventions to beat their rivals.<...>Here are the reasons for their gathering! And you, dear reader, imagining this, say impartially, is there at least a spark of good morals, conscience and humanity? Of course not! But will you still hear? (8).

However, the most curious thing is that Lukin attracts the entire arsenal of expressive means of oratory speech in the most vivid moral descriptive fragment of the preface, in which he gives a kind of genre picture from the life of card players: “Here is a living description of this community and common exercises in it” (10) . And it is hardly by chance that in this seemingly bizarre alliance of high rhetorical and low everyday writing stylistic traditions, the national idea beloved by Lukin reappears:

Others are like the pallor of the face of the dead<...>; others with bloody eyes - terrible furies; others with despondency of spirit - criminals who are drawn to execution; others with an extraordinary blush - cranberries<...>but no! It is better to leave the Russian comparison! (9).

To the “cranberry berry”, which really looks like a kind of stylistic dissonance next to the dead, furies and criminals, Lukin makes the following note: “This likeness will seem strange to some readers, but not to everyone. There must be something Russian in Russian, and here, it seems, my pen did not sin<...>" (9). So again, the theoretical antagonist Sumarokova Lukin actually approaches his literary opponent in practical attempts to express the national idea in the dialogue of older Russian aesthetic traditions and attitudes of satirical life writing and oratory. And if Sumarokov in The Guardian (1764-1765) for the first time tried to stylistically differentiate the world of things and the world of ideas and push them into conflict, then Lukin, parallel to him and simultaneously with him, begins to find out how the aesthetic arsenal of one literary series is suitable for recreating realities another. Oratory speaking in order to recreate the material world image and everyday life, pursuing the lofty goals of moralizing and edification, is the result of such a crossing of traditions. And if in “Mota” Lukin mainly uses oratorical speech in order to create a reliable everyday coloring of the action, then in “Schepetilnik” we see the opposite combination: everyday plasticity is used for rhetorical purposes.

The Poetics of the Comedy "Schepeter": a synthesis of odosatirical genre formants The comedy "Schepetilnik" Lukin "inclined to Russian customs" from the English original, Dodeli's moralistic comedy "The Toy-shop", which already in the time of Lukin was translated into French under the name "Boutique de Bijoutier" ("Habbery shop"). Quite remarkable is the fact that Lukin himself in his “Letter to Mr. Elchaninov” stubbornly calls both his original and his “inclined to Russian mores” version “satires”:

<...>He began to prepare himself for the remaking of this Aglian satire into a comic work<...>. (184). <...>I noticed that this satire for our theater has been rather well remade (186). He [Dodeli's text], having turned into a comic essay, can be called quite good both in content and in sharp satire.<...> (186). <...>I got a chance to deliver this satirical work into Russian (188).

It is obvious that the word "satire" is used by Lukin in two meanings: satire as an ethical trend ("biting satire", "satiric writing") is adjacent to satire as a genre definition ("this Aglian satire", "this satire"). And in full accordance with this second meaning is the world-image, which is created in The Squirrel, primarily as an image of the world of things, dictated by the very motives of a haberdashery shop and small haberdashery trade, which serve as a plot core for stringing episodes with a satirical moralistic task: an absolute analogy with the genre model of the cumulative satire of Cantemir, where the vice expressed by the concept is developed in a gallery of everyday portraits-illustrations, varying the types of its bearers. Throughout the action, the scene is densely filled with the most diverse things, quite physical and visible: "Both workers, having put the basket on the bench, take out things and talk"(197), discussing the merits of objects hitherto unseen on the Russian stage, such as spotting scope, groups of cupids depicting arts and sciences, a gold clock with an alarm clock, snuff boxes alagrek, alasaluet and alabucheron, a notebook set in gold, glasses, scales, rings And rarities: shells from the Euphrates River, in which, no matter how small, predatory crocodiles fit And stones from the island of Nowhere Unprecedented. This parade of objects, moving from the hands of the Scribbler to the hands of his customers, is symptomatically opened by a mirror:

Scribbler. Expensive mirror! Glass is the best in the world! The coquette will immediately see in him all his vile antics; pretender - all cunning;<...>many women will see in this mirror that rouge and whitewash, although they spend two pots a day, cannot make up for their shamelessness.<...>Many people, and especially some great gentlemen, will not see here either their great merits, about which they shout every minute, or favors shown to poor people; however, this was not a reflection of guilt (203-204).

It is no coincidence that it is the mirror, which in its relations with the reality it reflects, connecting the object and the mirage in likening them to complete indistinguishability, reveals the true nature of the material-attributive series in the comedy "The Squirrel", which, with all the formal adherence to satirical everyday writing poetics, is still ideological, high comedy, since the entire pictorial arsenal of everyday writing plastics serves in it as the starting point for speaking completely oratorical, if not in its form, then in its content. The thing in "Schepeter" is a strong point and a formal occasion for ideological, moralistic and didactic speaking. Lukin's fundamental plot innovation in relation to the original text - the introduction of additional characters, Major Chistoserdov and his nephew, listeners of the Shchepetilnik, radically changes the sphere of genre gravity of the English-French moralistic scene. In the “inclined to our morals” version, the presence of listeners and observers of the action of the haberdashery trade directly on the stage turns the meaning of the comedy towards education, instilling ideal concepts of position and virtue:

Chistoserdov. I'm already excessively sorry that to this day there is no that mocking Scribbler<...>; you've heard about it from me more than once. Standing beside him, at two o'clock more people you will know than living in a city in two years (193);<...>I brought my nephew here on purpose so that he would listen to your descriptions (201); Chistoserdov. Well, nephew! Do his instructions seem to you like that, as I said? Nephew . They are very pleasant to me, and I wish to listen to them more often (201); Chistoserdov. This evening enlightened my nephew a lot. Nephew (Schepetilnik).<...> I am for happiness mail, if<...>I will receive from you helpful tips (223).

Thus, the life-writing plot of the comedy is relegated to the background: the dialogues between the Squealer and the customers are filled with “higher content” and take on the character of demonstrating not so much a thing and its properties as the concepts of vice and virtue. The everyday act of sale-purchase becomes a peculiar form of exposure and edification, in which the thing loses its material nature and turns into a symbol:

Scribbler. In this snuffbox, no matter how small it may be, some of the courtiers can fit all their sincerity, some of the clerks all their honesty, all the coquettes without exception their good manners, helicopters all their reason, solicitors all their conscience, and poets all their wealth (204) .

Such a crossing at one point of two plans of action - everyday life and moral description on the one hand, instruction and education - on the other, gives the word, in which both actions of the "Schepeter" are carried out, a certain functional and semantic vibration. It, the word, in the "Schepeter" is very bizarre. In its immediate content, it is closely connected with the material series and therefore - pictorial; it is no coincidence that the monologues of the Scribbler are called descriptions by both himself and his partners:

Scribbler. I needed to make this description (204);<...>with description or without description? (205); Chistoserdov. You described them with living colors (206);<...>here is a true description of the wife (212); Scribbler. I will briefly describe to you all their kindness (213).

But this property characterizes the word in the "Schepeter" only at first glance, because in the final analysis it has a high meaning and claims to immediately transform reality in the direction of its harmonization and approximation to the ideal of virtue:

Scribbler. Today I ridiculed twenty exemplary fellows, and only one corrected himself, and all were angry.<...>everyone who listens to my jokes deigns to amuse themselves with ridiculed models and thereby prove that, of course, they don’t find themselves here, because no one likes to laugh at themselves, but everyone is ready to laugh at their neighbor, from which I will wean them until then until my strength becomes (224).

Addressed and addressed not only to the audience, but also to the listening characters (Chistoserdov and his nephew), the word of Shchepetilnik is everyday and pictorial only in form, in essence it is a high oratorio, seeking an ideal, and therefore two opposite rhetorical settings are combined in it: panegyric things are blasphemed to a vicious buyer; both the thing and the human character are thus equalized by their argumentative function in action, serving as nothing more than a visual illustration of the abstract concept of vice (or virtue). Consequently, immersed in the elements of material life and descriptions of vicious morals, the action of the "Schepeter" actually acquires a high ethical goal and pathos; it operates with the ideologemes of honor and position, virtue and vice, although stylistically these two of its spheres are not demarcated. And in this capacity, the synthesis of everyday and ideological worldviews, carried out by Lukin on the material of European comedy, turned out to be incredibly promising: Russified comedy, as it were, began to suggest in which direction it should be developed so that it could become Russian. Recall that the act of raising a Chistoserdovskiy nephew begins with a mirror (cf. the famous epigraph of the "Inspector"), reflecting the crooked faces of petimeters, coquettes, nobles, etc., looking into it, and ends with a quote from Boileau's 7th satire, pushing laughter and tears in one affect and already heard earlier in Russian literature: “<...>often the same words that make readers laugh, draw tears from the writer<...>"(224), as well as the reflection that "no one likes to laugh at himself" (224), in which, with all the desire, it is impossible not to hear the first faint sound that will have to achieve the strength of fortissimo in the cry of the soul of Gogol's Governor: "What are you laughing at ? "You're laughing at yourself!" And isn't it strange that Lukin, who reproached Sumarokov for the lack of plots and denouement in his comedies, ended up writing the same one himself? And after all, he not only wrote, but also theoretically emphasized these properties of it: “I also regretted a lot that this comedy almost cannot be played, because there is not a love plexus in it, below the plot and denouement<...>» (191). Absence love affair as the driving force of comedy and a specific action, as if having no beginnings and ends, because the end is closed to the beginning, like life itself - is it possible to more accurately describe the productive genre model that Russian dramaturgy will face in the 19th century? Batiushkov once remarked: “Poetry, I dare say, requires the whole person.” . Perhaps, to Russian high comedy from Fonvizin to Gogol, this judgment can be applied almost more successfully: Russian comedy demanded immeasurably more than the whole person: the whole artist. And decisively all the modest opportunities that the writer V.I. Lukin possessed of average dignity and democratic origin turned out to be exhausted by his comedies of 1765. But in them he left the future Russian literature, and above all to his colleague in the office of Count N.I. Panin, Fonvizina, a whole scattering of semi-conscious finds, which, under the pen of other playwrights, sparkle with independent brilliance. However, the moment of Fonvizin's first high-profile fame (the comedy Brigadier, 1769) will coincide with his participation in an equally important literary event era: the collaboration of the playwright in satirical magazines N.I. Novikov "Drone" and "Painter", which became the central aesthetic factor of the transitional period of Russian history and Russian literature in the 1760s-1780s. The genres of journalistic prose developed by the staff of Novikov's journals have become a particularly clear embodiment of the tendencies towards the crossing of everyday and existential world images in the totality of their artistic methods of world modeling, those tendencies that were first identified in genre system creativity of Sumarokov and found their first expression in Lukin's comedy of manners.

The term of P. N. Berkov. See his monograph: The History of Russian Comedy of the 18th Century. L., 1977. S.71-82.
Lukin V.I., Elchaninov B.E. Compositions and translations. SPb., 1868. P. 100. In the future, Lukin's prefaces and comedies are quoted from this edition with page numbers in brackets.
Toporov V. N."Inclination to Russian mores" from a semiotic point of view (On one of the sources of Fonvizin's "Undergrowth") // Proceedings on sign systems. XXIII. Tartu, 1989 (Issue 855). P.107.
Fonvizin D.I. Sincere confession in my deeds and thoughts // Fonvizin D.I. Sobr. cit.: In 2 vols. M.; L., 1959. Vol. 2. P.99.
“The general expression of the properties of a person, the constant aspirations of his will<...>. The same property of an entire people, population, tribe, not so much dependent on the personality of each, but on a conditionally accepted one; everyday rules, habits, customs. See: Dal V.I. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language. M., 1979.V.2. P.558.
See about it: Berkoe P. Ya. History of Russian comedy of the 18th century. L., 1977. S.77-78.
Before Fonvizin, the “ready and tested framework” of a comedy action, with which its original Russian nature did not fit well, is evident in almost all comedians: in Sumarokov, in the form of plot fragments, behind which Western European texts are guessed, in Lukin and the playwrights of the Yelagin school, these plots themselves in general (slightly modified) form, and Fonvizin did not go anywhere from the "offer" even in "The Brigadier". Only in "Undergrowth" did the "frames" of the comedy become completely "their own": they caused a lot of bewilderment and critical verdicts with their unusual form, but it was already impossible to reproach them for the lack of originality and national originality.
The symmetrical-ring composition of the publication, subject to the principle of parity (two parts, two comedies in each), in its structural foundations is extremely reminiscent of the symmetrical-mirror structure of the four-act comedy Woe from Wit, in whose compositional units scenes with a predominance of love and public topics. Cm.: Omarova D.A. Griboedov's comedy plan // A. S. Griboyedov. Creation. Biography. Traditions. L., 1977. pp.46-51.
Remarks in the texts of Lukin's comedies, as a rule, mark the addressing of speech ("brother", "princess", "worker", "Schepetilnik", "nephew", "aside", etc.), its emotional richness ("angry", “with annoyance”, “with humiliation”, “crying”) and the movements of the actors around the stage with the registration of a gesture (“pointing at Zloradov”, “kissing her hands”, “falling to his knees”, “makes various body movements and expresses his extreme confusion and confusion").
As O. M. Freidenberg noted, a person in tragedy is passive; if he is active, then his activity is guilt and error, leading him to disaster; in comedy, he must be active, and if he is still passive, another tries for him (the servant is his double). - Freidenberg O. M. The origin of literary intrigue // Proceedings on sign systems VI. Tartu, 1973. (308) S.510-511. Wed according to Roland Barthes: the sphere of language is “the only sphere to which tragedy belongs: in tragedy one never dies, for one speaks all the time. And vice versa - leaving the stage for the hero is one way or another tantamount to death.<...>For in that purely linguistic world, which is tragedy, action appears as the ultimate incarnation of impurity. - Bart Rollan. Rasinovsky man. // Bart Rollan. Selected works. M., 1989. S. 149,151.
Wed in Cantemir: “And poems that put laughter on the lips of readers / Often the publisher’s tears are the cause” (Satire IV. To his muse. On the danger of satirical writings - 110).
Batyushkov K. N. Something about a poet and poetry // Batyushkov K. N. Experiments in verse and prose. M., 1977. P.22.

Read in 9 minutes

The comedy is preceded by a lengthy author's preface, which says that most writers take to the pen for three reasons. The first is the desire to become famous; the second - to get rich; the third is the satisfaction of one's own base feelings, such as envy and the desire to take revenge on someone. Lukin, on the other hand, seeks to benefit his compatriots and hopes that the reader will be condescending to his work. He also expresses gratitude to the actors involved in his play, believing that they all have the right to share the praise with the author.

The action takes place in the Moscow home of the Dowager Princess, who is in love with one of the Dobroserdov brothers. Servant Vasily, waiting for the awakening of his master, talks to himself about the vicissitudes of the fate of his young master. The son of a decent man is completely squandered and lives in fear of prison punishment. Dokukin appears, who would like to receive a long-standing debt from the owner of Vasily. Vasily is trying to get rid of Dokukin under the pretext that his owner is about to receive the money and will soon return everything in full. Dokukin is afraid of being deceived and not only does not leave, but follows Vasily to the master's bedroom, who was awakened by loud voices. Seeing Dokukin, Dobroserdov consoles him by informing him of his marriage to the local mistress, and asks him to wait a bit, since the princess promised to give such a sum of money for the wedding that she would be enough to repay the debt. Dobroserdov goes to the princess, but Dokukin and Vasily remain. The servant explains to the creditor that no one should see him in the princess's house - otherwise Dobroserdov's debts and ruin will become known. The lender (creditor) leaves, muttering to himself that he will make inquiries with Zloradov.

The maid Stepanida, who appeared with the princess half, manages to notice Dokukin and asks Vasily about him. The servant tells Stepanida in detail about the circumstances due to which his master, Dobroserdov, found himself in distress. At the age of fourteen, his father sent him to Petersburg in the care of his brother, a frivolous man. The young man neglected science and indulged in entertainment, making friends with Zloradov, with whom he settled together after his uncle died. In a month he was completely ruined, and in four he owed thirty thousand to various merchants, including Dokukin. Zloradov not only helped squander the estate and borrowed money, but also quarreled Dobroserdov with another uncle. The latter decided to leave the inheritance to the younger brother of Dobroserdov, with whom he left for the village.

There is only one way to beg for the uncle's forgiveness - by marrying a prudent and virtuous girl, whom Dobroserdov considers Cleopatra, the princess's niece. Basil asks Stepanida to persuade Cleopatra to run away with the Good-Hearted Taik. The maid does not believe that the well-behaved Cleopatra will agree, but she would like to save her mistress from her aunt-princess, who spends her niece's money on her whims and outfits. Dobroserdov appears, who also asks Stepanida for help. The maid leaves, and the princess appears, not hiding her attention to the young man. She invites him to her room to get dressed for the upcoming exit in his presence. Not without difficulty, Dobroserdov, embarrassed by the need to deceive the princess in love with him, seems so busy that he happily avoids the need to be present at the princess's toilet, all the more so to accompany her to visit. Overjoyed, Dobroserdov sends Vasily to Zloradov, his true friend, to open up to him and lend him money to escape. Vasily believes that Zloradov is not capable of good deeds, but he fails to dissuade Dobroserdov.

Dobroserdov does not find a place for himself in the expectation of Stepanida and curses himself for the recklessness of former days - disobedience and extravagance. Stepanida appears and reports that she did not have time to explain to Cleopatra. She advises Dobroserdov to write a letter to the girl with a story about her feelings. Delighted, Dobroserdov leaves, and Stepanida reflects on the reasons for her participation in the fate of the lovers and comes to the conclusion that the point is her love for Vasily, whose kindness is more important to her than the unsightly appearance of an elderly age.

The princess appears and lashes out at Stepanida with abuse. The maid justifies herself by saying that she wanted to serve the mistress and came to find out something about Dobroserdov. The young man, who appeared from his room, at first does not notice the princess, but when he sees her, he imperceptibly thrusts the letter to the maid. Both women leave, and Dobroserdov remains waiting for Vasily.

Stepanida suddenly returns with sad news. It turns out that the princess went to visit her daughter-in-law in order to sign documents (in line) for Cleopatra's dowry. She wants to marry her to the wealthy breeder Srebrolyubov, who undertakes not only not to demand the prescribed dowry, but also gives the princess a stone house and ten thousand in addition. The young man is indignant, and the maid promises him her help.

Vasily returns and tells about the vile act of Zloradov, who incited Dokukin (the creditor) to immediately claim the debt from Dobroserdov, since the debtor intends to hide from the city. Kind-hearted does not believe, although some doubt settles in his soul. Therefore, at first it is cold, and then with the same simplicity of heart, he tells Zloradov who has appeared about everything that happened. Zloradov feignedly promises to help get the necessary three hundred rubles from the princess, realizing to himself that Cleopatra's wedding with the merchant will be very beneficial to him. To do this, you should write a letter to the princess asking for a loan in order to pay the card debt and take him to the house where the princess is staying. Dobroserdov agrees and, forgetting Stepanida's warnings not to leave the room, leaves to write a letter. Vasily is indignant because of the gullibility of his master.

Stepanida, who has reappeared, informs Dobroserdov that Cleopatra has read the letter, and although it cannot be said that she decided to run away, she does not hide her love for the young man. Suddenly, Panfil appears - a servant of Dobroserdov's younger brother, sent secretly with a letter. It turns out that the uncle was ready to forgive Dobroserdov, as he learned from his younger brother about his intention to marry a virtuous girl. But the neighbors hastened to report the debauchery of the young man, allegedly squandering Cleopatra's estate along with her guardian, the princess. Uncle was furious, and there is only one way: immediately come with the girl to the village and explain the true state of affairs.

Zloradov comes, pleased with how he managed to circle the princess around his finger. Now, if it is possible to adjust the sudden appearance of the princess during Dobroserdov’s date with Cleopatra, the girl is threatened with a monastery, her beloved prison, all the money will go to Zloradov. Dobroserdov appears and, having received money from Zloradov, again recklessly dedicates him to all the details of his conversation with Cleopatra. Zloradov leaves. Cleopatra appears with her maid. During an ardent explanation, the princess appears, accompanied by Zloradov. Only Stepanida was not taken aback, but the young man and his servant were amazed by her speech. Rushing to the princess, the maid reveals Dobroserdov's plan for the immediate escape of her niece and asks the princess's permission to take the girl to the monastery, where their relative serves as abbess. The enraged princess entrusts the ungrateful niece to the maid, and they leave. Dobroserdov tries to follow them, but the princess stops him and showers him with reproaches of black ingratitude. The young man is trying to find support from an imaginary friend of Zloradov, but he reveals his true face, accusing the young man of debauchery. The princess demands from Dobroserdov respect for her future husband. Zloradov and the overripe coquette leave, and Dobroserdov rushes with belated regrets to his servant.

A poor widow appears with her daughter and reminds the young man of the debt she has been waiting for for a year and a half. Dobroserdov without hesitation gives the widow three hundred rubles brought from Princess Zloradov. After the widow leaves, he asks Vasily to sell all his clothes and underwear in order to pay off the widow. Vasily offers freedom. Vasily refuses, explaining that he will not leave the young man at such a difficult time, especially since he has moved away from a dissolute life. Meanwhile, lenders and clerks, invited by Zloradov, are gathering near the house.

Suddenly, Dobroserdov's younger brother appears. The older brother is even more desperate because the younger one has witnessed his shame. But things take an unexpected turn. It turns out that their uncle died and left his estate to his older brother, forgiving all his sins. The younger Dobroserdov is ready to immediately pay off debts to creditors and pay for the work of clerks from the magistrate. One thing upsets Dobroserdov Sr. - the absence of the beloved Cleopatra. But she is here. It turns out that Stepanida deceived the princess and took the girl not to the monastery, but to the village to her lover's uncle. On the way they met their younger brother and told him everything. Zloradov was trying to get out of this situation, but, having failed, began to threaten Dobroserdov. However, creditors who have lost future interest from the wealthy debtor present Zloradov's bills to the clerks. The princess repents of her actions. Stepanida and Vasily get their freedom, but they are going to continue to serve their masters. Vasily also makes a speech about the fact that all the girls should be likened to Cleopatra in good manners, “obsolete coquettes” would refuse affectation, like the princess, and “the god of villainy does not leave without punishment.”

Poetics of the comedy "Mot, corrected by love": the role of the speaking character

The sharpness of Lukin's literary intuition (far exceeding his modest creative possibilities) is emphasized by the fact that in most cases he chooses texts where a loquacious, talkative or preaching character occupies a central place as a source for his “additions”. This increased attention to the independent dramaturgical possibilities of the act of speaking in its plot, everyday writing or ideological functions is an unconditional evidence that Lukin was characterized by a sense of the specifics of “our mores”: Russian enlighteners, without exception, attached a fateful significance to the word as such.
Quite symptomatic is the practical exhaustion of most of the characters in Mota, Corrected with Love and The Squirrel by a pure act of ideological or everyday speaking, not accompanied on stage by any other action. The word spoken aloud on the stage absolutely coincides with its carrier; his role is subject to the general semantics of his word. Thus, the word is, as it were, embodied in the human figure of the heroes of Lukin's comedies. Moreover, in the oppositions of vice and virtue, talkativeness is characteristic not only of protagonist characters, but also of antagonist characters. That is, the very act of speaking appears in Lukin as variable in its moral characteristics, and talkativeness can be a property of both virtue and vice.
This hesitation of a general nature, sometimes humiliating, sometimes elevating its bearers, is especially noticeable in the comedy “Mot, corrected by love”, where a pair of dramatic antagonists - Good-Hearted and Spiteful - equally divides large monologues facing the audience. And these rhetorical declarations are based on the same basic motives of a crime against a moral norm, repentance and remorse, but with a diametrically opposite moral meaning:
Dobroserdov.<...>Everything that an unfortunate person can feel, everything I feel, but I suffer more from him. He only has to endure the persecution of fate, and I have to endure remorse and gnaw of conscience ... Since the time I parted with my parent, I have lived incessantly in vices. deceived, deceived, pretended<...>and now I suffer for it with dignity.<...>But I am very happy that I recognized Cleopatra. By her instructions I turned to virtue (30).
Zloradov. I’ll go and tell her [the princess] all his [Dobroserdov’s] intentions, I’ll bring him to extreme grief, and immediately, without wasting time, I’ll open up that I myself fell in love with her a long time ago. She, enraged, will despise him, but prefer me. It will surely come true.<...>Repentance and pangs of conscience are completely unknown to me, and I am not one of those simpletons who are horrified by the future life and hellish torments (40).
The straightforwardness with which the characters declare their moral character from the first appearance on the stage makes us see in Lukin a diligent student not only of Detouche, but also of the “father of Russian tragedy” Sumarokov. In combination with the complete absence of a comic principle in Mota, such straightforwardness prompts us to see in Lukin’s work not so much a “tearful comedy” as a “petty-bourgeois tragedy”. After all, the psychological and conceptual verbal leitmotifs of the play are oriented precisely towards tragic poetics.
The emotional picture of the action of the so-called “comedy” is determined by a completely tragic series of concepts: some comedy characters are tormented by despair and longing, they lament, repent and rage; they are tormented and gnawed by conscience, they consider their misfortune to be retribution for guilt; their permanent state is tears and weeping. Others feel pity and compassion for them, serving as motives for their actions. For the image of the protagonist Dobroserdov, such undoubtedly tragic verbal motifs as the motifs of death and fate are very relevant:
Stepanida. So that's why Dobroserdov is a dead man? (24); Dobroserdov.<...>persecution of fate must endure<...>(thirty); Tell me, should I live or die? (31); Oh fate! Reward me with such happiness<...>(33); Oh, merciless fate! (34); Oh fate! I must thank you and complain about your severity (44); My heart is trembling and, of course, a new blow portends. Oh fate! Do not spare me and fight quickly! (45); A rather angry fate drives me away. Oh, wrathful fate! (67);<...>best of all, forgetting offense and revenge, make an end to my frantic life. (68); Oh fate! You even added to my grief, so that he would be a witness to my shame (74).
And quite in the tradition of Russian tragedy, how this genre took shape in the 1750s and 1760s. under the pen of Sumarokov, the fatal clouds that have gathered over the head of a virtuous character fall with just punishment on the vicious one:
Zloradov. Oh, perverse fate! (78); Good-hearted-smaller. May he receive a worthy retribution for his villainy (80).
Such a concentration of tragic motifs in a text that has the genre definition of “comedy” is also reflected in the stage behavior of the characters, devoid of any physical action, with the exception of traditional falling to their knees and attempts to draw a sword (62-63, 66). But if Dobroserdov, as the main positive hero of a tragedy, albeit a petty-bourgeois one, by his very role is supposed to be passive, redeemed in dramatic action by speaking akin to a tragic recitation, then Zloradov is an active person leading an intrigue against the central hero. It becomes all the more noticeable against the background of traditional ideas about the role that Lukin prefers to endow his negative character not so much with action as with informative speaking, which can anticipate, describe and summarize the action, but the action itself is not equivalent.
The preference for words over action is not just a flaw in Lukin's dramatic technique; it is also a reflection of the hierarchy of reality in the enlightenment consciousness of the 18th century, and an orientation towards the artistic tradition already existing in Russian literature. Journalistic in its original message and seeking the eradication of vice and the inculcation of virtue, Lukin's comedy, with its emphasized ethical and social pathos, resurrects the tradition of Russian syncretic preaching-words at a new round of literary development. The artistic word, put at the service of intentions that are foreign to it, hardly accidentally acquired a shade of rhetoric and oratory in Lukin's comedyography and theory - this is quite obvious in his direct appeal to the reader and viewer.
It is no coincidence that among the virtues of an ideal comedian, along with “graceful qualities”, “extensive imagination” and “important study”, Lukin in the preface to “Motu” also names the “gift of eloquence”, and the style of individual fragments of this preface is clearly oriented to the laws of oratorical speech. This is especially noticeable in the examples of constant appeals to the reader, in enumerations and repetitions, in numerous rhetorical questions and exclamations, and, finally, in imitation of the written text of the preface under the spoken word, sounding speech:
Imagine, reader.<...>imagine a crowd of people, often more than a hundred people.<...>Some of them are sitting at the table, others are walking around the room, but all of them are constructing punishments worthy of various inventions to beat their rivals.<...>Here are the reasons for their gathering! And you, dear reader, imagining this, say impartially, is there at least a spark of good morals, conscience and humanity? Of course not! But will you still hear? (8).
However, the most curious thing is that Lukin attracts the entire arsenal of expressive means of oratorical speech in the most vivid moral descriptive fragment of the preface, in which he gives a kind of genre picture from the life of card players: “Here is a living description of this community and the exercises in it” (10) . And it is hardly by chance that in this seemingly bizarre alliance of high rhetorical and low everyday writing stylistic traditions, the national idea beloved by Lukin reappears:
Others are like the pallor of the face of the dead<...>; others with bloody eyes - terrible furies; others with despondency of spirit - criminals, drawn to execution; others with an extraordinary blush - cranberries<...>but no! It is better to leave the Russian comparison! (9).
To the “cranberry berry”, which really looks like a kind of stylistic dissonance next to the dead, furies and criminals, Lukin makes the following note: “This likeness will seem strange to some readers, but not to everyone. There must be something Russian in Russian, and here, it seems, my pen did not sin<...>” (9).
So again, the theoretical antagonist Sumarokova Lukin actually approaches his literary opponent in practical attempts to express the national idea in the dialogue of older Russian aesthetic traditions and attitudes of satirical life writing and oratory. And if Sumarokov in The Guardian (1764-1765) for the first time tried to stylistically differentiate the world of things and the world of ideas and push them into conflict, then Lukin, parallel to him and simultaneously with him, begins to find out how the aesthetic arsenal of one literary series is suitable for recreating realities another. Oratory speaking in order to recreate the material world image and everyday life, pursuing the lofty goals of moralizing and edification, is the result of such a crossing of traditions. And if in “Mota” Lukin mainly uses oratorical speech in order to create a reliable everyday flavor of the action, then in “Schepetilnik” we see the opposite combination: everyday plasticity is used for rhetorical purposes.