Національна Академія Мистецтв України Інститут культурології
жүктеу/скачать 6.92 Mb.
|
| colloquy & exhibition entails also the prominent place of dramatic art in the formation of naturalism. The prerequisites can be elucidated for the new glimpse on the circumstances of how N.V. Gogol has become the actual founder of naturalism, after proving to be the founder of the “natural school” and “physiological sketch”. It is the series of the well-known questions that arise here, in particular those about the absence of the so-called positive heroes (protagonists) and about the uniqueness of the female images – such as market-women (Thecla in “The Marriage”, Solokha in “The Holy Night”, Khivrya in “The Sorochin Market”), old dames (Korobochka, Pulcheria Ivanovna), persons of finicality (in “The Inspector”, “Dead Souls”), maidens of ingénue (Paraska in “The Sorochin Market”, Ann in “May Night”) or dead women (Ladies from “May Night”, “Viy”). Both the non-acceptance of reality as contrasted to dream (the commonplace of romanticism) and the exaggerated criticism (in its turn towards dreaminess itself) have become the source for the apology of pathology and the naturalistic cult of ugliness. It is worth noting that exactly the absence of protagonists creates in Gogol dramaturgy such dialogical situation, which to a certain extent anticipates that of A.P. Chekhov. Everybody tells something without listening to partners and presenting “the state of universal alienation on the eve of the universal hostility’, be here the apt and witty observation of Mandelshtam applied. The common denominator becomes here negativism, the focusing of the fact that is subject to criticism and negation.
There are foundations for considering the world without protagonists (as it is represented in Gogol’s negative attitude of dramaturgy) as the embodiment of a broader conception. It is noteworthy to cite the preface to the 2nd publication of “The Inspector” (unsent letter to A.S. Pushkin) where in regard to the image of Khlestakov the thought is expressed, for its time radically paradoxical: «Вообще у нас актеры совсем не умеют лгать. Они воображают, что лгать – значит просто нести болтовню. Лгать – значит говорить ложь тоном … так наивно, как можно только говорить одну истину …» ‘Generally speaking the actors in no way know how to deceive. They imagine that to deceive means simply to bear chatter. To lie actually means to speak lie in tone… so naively, as it is possible only to speak the truth only’. Meanwhile even student of parish school could not but know that according to gospel from John lie is the first and basic attribute of the unclean force. Therefore there are sufficient grounds to estimate Khlestakov (and also Chichikov some later) as the image of INFERNAL MESSENGER. That is why the importance of the motif LIE (DECEIT) leaves far beyond the framework of the treatment of the role of Khlestakov alone. It is not only Khlestakov who deceives, deceived occur his worse expectations – in the sense that instead of the threat of debt prison one assumes him as “authorized person”. It comes as “a pleasant deceit” (for the hero). The entire play appears to become the comedy “deceived expectations” (in contrast to the tragic romantic motives of “illusions perdues”). In “The Marriage” the professional deceiver Thecla is beaten in her play by the more energetic Kochkarev that in its turn appears willy-nilly to be deceived by Podkolesin who did not intend to harm somebody especially. “The Gamblers” is completely built on the fraud, the philosophy of fraud, moreover, is here presented, and its social role is based.. In other words the motif LIE is represented actually as the name of the faceless force, which stands above the people, which subordinates their will – that already in the ХХ-th century due to existentialism has acquired the name of alienation. Usually one speaks about “mirage” plots in Gogol dramaturgy, but this property or the verve of apparition doesn’t merely coincide with what would be designated as virtual world in current slang. It goes about sincere (be such an epithet here appropriate), deliberate, preponderated, intentional fraud and deceit, and this intention belongs to incognito from the unknown or ignored side. Such impersonal power of fraud and deceit determines also very peculiar and closed world of absurdity. In its turn, this absurdity of universal lie as the tool of the criticism of reality has very deep roots that can be detected with the analysis of deictic network. The city-mayor (Gorodnichy) just at the instant of the truth’s disclosure declares: «Вижу какие-то свиные рыла вместо лиц, а больше ничего» ‘I see some piggish muzzles instead of the persons, and it is more nothing’. Meanwhile these words are nothing else but actual reference to the analogous place from “Sorochinskaya fair”: immediately after the Godparent’s story about “the pure-gold roll” and his words that «... каждый год, и как раз во время ярмарки, черт с свиною личиною ходит по всей площади …» ‘each year, and exactly during the fair, the devil with the pig mask walks throughout the entire square’, in a cottage where the fellows gathered «окно брякнуло с шумом … и страшная свиная рожа выставилась …» ‘the window fell down with noise… and terrible piggish muzzle appeared’. One can observe the motif PIGGISH MUZZLE (mask, snout) to rise in the corpus of Gogol’s texts that becomes the attribute of infernal forces. But in this case the new vision won by Gorodnichy becomes reasonable to that opened for the Grandfather from “The Lost Bill” who has just arrived to hell and addresses it inhabitants: «… будь я католик, когда не переворочу свиных рыл ваших на затылок!» (let me become a papist if I won’t your piggish muzzles turn backwards!). These intertextual references give grounds for the statement that the final revelation given to Gorodnichy represents infernal vision of the world as the hell’s department. In this respect T. Shevchenko can be estimated as the counterpart of N. Gogol with the same infernal viewpoint with the difference of the inclination into the exclusive negation of laughter. The dramatic peculiarities of Shevchenko’s lyric verses are the result of the textual strategy of scenic mimicry chosen by the poet – let be reminded here only his own confession in regard to Gogol: <«Ти смієшся, а я плачу / великий мій друже»>. The chief features of this strategy are determined with the infernal disharmony of a world’s mapping, specific fatalism, and the martyrdom of solitude that provoke one-sided seriousness of a lyric utterance. Together with the known epic properties of the lyrics one detects the dramatic features of the lyrics miniatures that are represented as the replicas of imaginary dialogues or discussions. An important side of the researches of such features is a word’s location, in particular its address as to the imaginary dialogue’s partners. Shevchenko’s lyrics are marked with constant serious tone of utterances as a result of textual strategy of scenic mimicry that gives grounds for the statements about its theatre origins as well as its dramatic properties. The intentional exaggeration of evil is well attested by the researchers who have noticed the “hyperbolized tragic” as the result of mystifying reality972. Such approach to reality as inferno comes obviously back to baroque poetry with its category of vanity that in its turn reproduces the religious criticism with its intolerance. It is still the name of the conscious continuator of Gogol to be mentioned, that of A.V. Sukhovo-Kobylin, who in difference to his predecessor has presented on stage the protagonists becoming victims of the infernal world. As an example one can cite the second part of his dramatic trilogy, “The Affair”, where are overtly used the images of the Holy Bible to interpret bureaucracy as the satanic fabrication. Very noteworthy looks the interchange of remarks between the protagonist Muromski and his faithful servant Razuvayev. Further in his comments to the speech of the extortions’ master Tarelkin who takes liberty of giving lessons and instructions to Muromski’s household as to the mastery of bribing the officials (designated in official slang as “notes” – «записки») Razuvayev gives bible elucidation for these bureaucratic notions. <(Тарелкин: «Он примет, да чиновнику и передаст … к другому – а их до полусотни … а секретарь передаст делать справки – мне». Разуваев: «И предаст тя соперник Судии» Т. «А я отдам столоначальнику». Р. «И предаст тя Судия слузе, …»). (Tarelkin: He’ll accept, yes to official will transmit… to other - and them to fifty… and secretary will communicate to make information - to me. Rayuvayev: And the rival will bring thou to the Judge. T.: But I will return it to the department’s manager. R.: And the Judge will bring thou to the Servant) (3, 4)> One can find here in the same passage about the mutual responsibility of officialdom the apparent reference to Gogol’s “Dead Souls” where Chichikov aiming to make his business as sooner as possible mentions in the conversation with the official about his acquaintance with the president Ivan Grigoryevicn and receives the reply: <«Да ведь Иван Григорьевич не один; бывают и другие» ‘Well, indeed. Ivan Grigorevich is not alone; there are others’>. Thus the image of multifaceted, many-headed monster is created, that of the DECEIT, the mission of drama being to disrobe and expose this monster. Within the framework of criticism and negative attitude of the “natural school” the one-act dramas “The Gamblers” and “The Marriage” gain especial significance as the samples of “physiological sketches”. The first of them can be regarded as the source for the last part of Sukhovo-Kobylin’s cycle with the common motif “the bigger beast of prey devours the smaller one”. Such mutuality of “plots - mirages” is revealed also in the fact that in both works the action is turned havoc in the fictitious, play space. In “Tarelkin’s death” the pair of antagonists carries out a duel under the fictitious names – Tarelkin (after the simulation of his own death) as Kopylov, and its chief Varravin, who attempts to find stolen by Tarelkin compromising material as “Caucasian hero” Polutatarinov. In “The Gamblers” Uteshitelny and his companions develop the play of the imaginary loss before the cardsharper Ikharev: actually here the method “of scene on the scene” is adapted where the spectator – victim himself is involved to partially participate. When Gogol represents the satire of criminal underground with the farsightedly careful epigraph “of the matters of the long ago past days” («Дела давно минувших дней»), it is Sukhovo –Kobylin who for the first time in world dramaturgy puts in the center police as the basic embodiment of bureaucratic monster, as the anonymous body of total corruption and the infernal power. Moreover in the 3-d act the completely unthinkable previously method is represented: dialogues in their purified form of the so called stychomithy (the interchange of short questions and responses) are interpreted as the police examination! The Platonic tradition with the unprecedented sarcasm is interpreted as the instrument of “the world of violence”. Uteshitelny in “The Gamblers” presents an original lecture in sociology. His remark about its own activity is already noteworthy: «Это то, что называется в политической экономии распределение работ» ‘this is that one calls the works’ assignment in the political economy’. If “the deep economist” Eugene Onegin used his knowledge for the possible remaking of society, then here the discussion deals precisely with the adaptation to it of the entire caste of villains, which brings destructive fruits. Very eloquent are here the consolations, aimed at the achievement of the confidence of Ikharev: «Приветливые ласки хозяина дороже всяких удобств» ‘Affable kindness of owner are more expensive than any convenience; – it is just an obligatory conventionality, and «Человек, шампанского!» ‘Servant, champagne!’ as a refrain in his mouth betrays his habits of making his victims drunkards. The exaggerated demonstration the virtues («Если дело коснется обязанностей или долга, я уж ничего не помню») (‘If the matter touches responsibilities or debt, I already nothing remember’)973 evokes only skeptical reaction of Ikharev («Знаем мы тех людей, которые увлекаются и горячатся при слове обязанность») (‘We know those people, which are carried along and are excited with the word the responsibility’). That is why Uteshitelny changes his tone and the selection of idioms, recommending to the companions to keep vigilance. And it is just here that the elements of awkwardness are deliberately demonstrated. It is already the first phrase in this new style («Мы видели ваше искусство и, поверьте, умеем отдавать справедливость достоинству») (‘We saw your skill and, believe, we know how to return validity to the merit’) that presents recurrent lexis that returns anew («… кроме искусства, вы владеете еще достоинством хладнокровия») (‘besides skill, you manage another merit of the composure’). Finally, Uteshiitelny exposes his persuasion which occurs to become the last argument in making a fool of Ikharev: «В игре нет лицеприятия. Игра не смотрит ни на что. Пусть отец сядет со мною в карты – обыграю и отца» ‘There is no face in a game. Game looks not on what. Let the father sit down with me playing cards – I will beat the father’. Bearing in mind intertextual relations one has grounds to confront this enunciation with Tarelkin’s “sociology” presented in his sermon in “The Affair” (3, 5) to justify bribes: «… посмотрите, много на Невском народу? … Кому из них дело, что вы из хлопот ваших умереть можете?». ‘you’d better look out, are there many people on Nevskiy? … Does anybody over there have the matter that you can die from the troubles of yours?’. Thus the image of universal alienation arises. There is still another intertextual confrontation to be found where Uteshitelny plays the scene of the seduction of Glov allegedly desiring to become a hussar before the eyes of Uteshitelny: «Постой, душа, дай обниму тебя!» ‘Stand a while, soul, let me embrace you!’. Varvarinov in “Tarelkin’s Death” presents its treatment of familiarity in the same manner while appealing the officials: «… что же такое община, как не складчина? … (Встряхивая их за руки) Мы одна семья?» (1, 7) ‘And is not a community other than the clubbing? (Shaking them for the hands) we are are one family?’. One finds here also the parody of Razuvayev’s statements from „The Affair“ («… коли уж пошло на складчину – ну и даешь, сколько сердце подымет …» ) (‘if it comes to the clubbing – well, I’ll give what the heart lifts’), as well as Lidochka’s next remark («Обними меня!») (‘Embrace me!’). The motifs CLUBBING and EMBRACES reveal opposite senses in the mouths of antagonistic characters, since they perform deictic role and are correlated with their behavior. Sukhovo-Kobylin represents the world of absurdity but he sees no opportunity to leave it and to depart for other worlds. At Gogol Ikharev betrays himself when he begins to enunciate sentences on his comprehension of the events showing at the same time inability of adapting experience to his own conditions: «… вся штука в том, чтобы быть хладнокровну тогда, когда другой горячится» (8) ‘the whole piece is in keeping nerves with another being excited’. This sophistry reaches apogee in the monologue before the disclosure, when one is occupied with the self-justification: «Ну, положим – плутовство. … Оно некоторым образом предостерегательство» ‘Well, let us suppose - trickery … It turns to be somehow a warning’. After concocting the last neologism, it terminates his self-deception with the authentic apotheosis of the lie: «… обмануть всех и не быть обмануту самому – вот настоящая задача и цель!» (23) ‘to deceive all and not to be to deceived – here is the genuine task and purpose!’. Immediately afterwards the truth is revealed, which makes it necessary to supplement the almost interrupted monologue: «Тут же под боком отыщется плут, который тебя переплутует!» ‘Here quite near will be found the cheat, who will overcome your deceits!’. Thus the original motif LIE now is supplemented with the motif SWINDLE that is being revealed here as the way to suicide. There is still an important circumstance, which impelled Ikharev to take the bait of fraud, it issues itself in the remark: «Boredom, mortal boredom!». Thus still new motif comes into play – the very TEDIUM (BOREDOM) that has happened to conclude „Myrhorod“. But this gives key to the output into the rhetorical tradition, where boredom and despondency as the most important sins are connected with the images of VANITY, which is essential for the lack of protagonists. “The Marriage” is considered usually as a plain hazardous game that motivates the deeds of Kochkarev aiming at getting victory over the vocational match - maker Thecla. Meanwhile the idioms give ground for the conjecture on much more complicated intentions of the character. It is already the key words SHAME (in the remarks of the Bride Agaya Tikhonovna), BOREDOM (from the Podkolesin’s mouth), FEAR (of Podkotolesin) delineate the principal unnamed engine that propels the whole action – that of VANITY. This motif of vanity comes back to baroque traditions, the more it is interpreted here as the inversion of VARIETY in the mode of the baroque world view. Within the context of Gogol’s legacy “The Marriage” is the continuation of the “singular dream” that becomes the final episode of the short novel “Ivan Fedorovich Shponka and his aunt” where the matrimonial plans are presented as a monstrous vision. The play gives favorfable material for the study of deictic schemes, because the dramatis personae do continuously give accounts one of the other, and perform it with the figurative meanings. It is already the first and last contacts of the pair Kochkarev – Podkolesin that are marked with the symbolical events. At the beginning the mirror is broken, meanwhile after some cues in the next scene Kochkarev makes a remark «Ну взгляни в зеркало …» (Well, look in the mirror), as if nothing has happened. In the finale the deed of Podkolesin’s escape through the window is not nothing as the old rite of the so called defenestration that symbolizes death in the similar way as the crossing of a river (let be the title of E. Hemmingway’s novel “Across the River and into the Trees” be reminded here!). Moreover in the situation such a solution is marked with buffoonery in the way of attempting “tromper-la-mort” (to cheat the death) as in the image of the French saying, the death being identified with the marriage. There is still another remarkable detail. Podkolesin being submerged in the troubles of the preparation of the wedding (the details of the production of clothing and foot-wear are already discussed) hears Kochkarev’s question «Жениться ведь задумал?» ‘You plan to marry, don’t you?’ and gives the reply to it: «Вот вздор; совсем и не думал» (It is rubbish, I have no plans whatsoever). This answer is a typical psychological protection of anyone caught unaware or of anyone suspecting the envier. The motif RUBBISH makes us return to the last Kochrarev’s remark: «Это вздор, это не так …» (It’s rubbish, it is not so). The comparison of contexts makes it possible to perceive in this statement the component, synonymous with the already mentioned VANITY. Further the relations between Podkolesin and Kochkarev get still more complicated due to the remark of the appreciation of the maiden after the termination of the match-making: «Ну, брат, благодарю! … Отец родной для меня не сделал бы того, что ты … Будущей весной навещу непременно могилу твоего отца» ‘Well, brother, I thank! … My native father would not make for me that you have done … Next spring I”ll needs visit the grave of your father’. Nowhere before was it mentioned that there was Kochkarev’s deceased father (it is still one additional reference to death!), not to say of the exaggeration and artificiality of the expressions of thanks. It lacks motivation also for such Kochkarev’s enunciation (who has just made a reconnaissance to the maiden) as «Согласен и одобряю ваш союз» ‘I agree and approve your union’. This self-proclaimed match-maker behaves already as the manager of the fates of future couple. The key argument of the refusal of the marriage is expressed in Podkolesin’s words in the last monologue: «… все кончено, все сделано … назад никак нельзя попятиться» ‘everything is ended, everything is made… back in no way it cannot be go back’. The use of the passive voice is here very eloquent: he feels himself located in the squeezed position, and as oppressor appears exactly this self-styled match-maker. Podkolesin is not against the marriage, but he is against strangers interfering in his affairs, he desires independence, and it is this desideration that justifies the withdrawal. It remains only to assume that Kochkarev is moved with the envy, and precisely therefore he disturbs marriage with exaggerating efforts. The rapaciousness of Kochkarev is also testified with the final words of Thecla to him: «Вы подлец, коли вы честный человек» ‘You are the scoundrel, be you an honest man’. Such a catachresis refers to a similar remark of Nozdrev towards Chichikov in “The Dead Souls”: «Я бы приказал тебя повесить на первом дереве. Это я тебе по дружбе говорю» ‘I would order to hang you on the first tree. This I tell to you as a friend’. The motif of VANITY is here represented in the form of “chats about nothing” where the nrrative strategy of “escaping the theme” becomes obvious. Key utterances belong to a monstrous dramatic person of Yaichnitsa: «Странная погода нынче … Женатому человеку … не скучно; а если в одиночестве – так это просто …» ‘Strange weather is nowadays… to married person… it is not boring; and if in the solitude – then this is simple’. They are supplemented with the meaningful words of Zhevakin: «О смерть, совершенная смерть!» (1, 19) ‘Oh, death, perfect death!’. To comprehend this ominous meaningfulness one must take into account the fate of the motif СТРАННОСТЬ (strangeness) in the whole corps of the texts of Gogol. Precisely the same mention of «странной погоде» (strange weather) sounds from the mouth of Марьи Антоновны in reply to Khlestakov’s courtesy. “And it is only strange…” (“The Marriage” 1, 11) - notes Podkolesin in response to the flow of the admonitions of Kochkarev. Noteworthy in “Taras Bulba” in Andrey’s remark to servant - Tatar it appears only in the 2-d editorial version (though the definition of ‘Sich’ as «странной республики» (singular republic) is already in the 1-st version). In “Viy” the entire stream of events does not seem strange, it occurs only with the curiosity of Brutus in the characteristic, given in connection with “terrible beauty” of the dead body. Nothing estranged is to be seen in the adventures of Ivan Ivanovich and Ivan Nikiforovich, the more sinister is the outlook of strangeness and singularities in “The Old World Landlords”. If the death of Pulcheria Ivanovna is provoked with a ‘peculiar (and still not strange!) event’ «особенное происшествие», the death of Aphanasii Ivanovich becomes itself already ‘strange (and not peculiar) event’ «странное происшествие», and when the author visits the manor he observes «странный беспорядок» ‘strange disorder’. In “May night” is manifested “strange… radiance… of month” moreover (as in “Viy”) in combination with paronymic “terrible” («страшный»). Such semantic connotations, revealed through the references, testify that it is precisely Death that becomes the supreme invisible power of all events happening both with the cheats and with their victims. It is also to notice that the motif Gogol follows the traditions of the accusatory preaching of baroque epoch (as well as Shevchenko does), presenting the falsity of peace in the spirit of the commonplace “life as sleep” reconceived as the mentioned “mirage plots”. The absence of protagonists comes back to the tradition of the apophasis’ theology, where definitions are given through the negation. The idiomatic use of vocabulary makes it possible to reconstruct such author's intentions, disclosing the network of mutual deictic references, generated by intentional reflection. The analysis of this network enables revealing the changeability of the sense of the potentially isolated fragments of text and disclosing new connotations in the new correlations. It is such connotations that prove to be decisive for that change of state of unstable equilibrium, which is the basis of very nature of drama. The infernal motifs (taken as the theme of “the decadence of nobility’s nests”) can be also mentioned (within the area of Slavonic literatures) in regard to the Polish poet and playwright C. Norwid. The most essential feature of Norwid’s social criticism is жүктеу/скачать 6.92 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|