ТИП СТИХИЙНОГО ЧЕЛОВЕКА В ЛИРИКЕ «СЕРЕБРЯНОГО ВЕКА» (анализ трех стихотворений) Е.В. Новокшанова
1. Проблема судьбы культуры в русской философии и литературе на рубеже XIX–ХХ вв. была особенно актуальна. Осмыслению ее, в частности, посвящен спор Вяч. Иванова и М. Гершензона («Переписка из двух углов», 1920). Вяч. Иванов считает, что существует культурная преемственность. М. Гершензон же полагает, что культура отягощает человека. Отражение этого бесконечного спора о культуре мы находим и в поэзии «серебряного века».
По отношению к культуре, к историческому прошлому мироощущение поэтов рубежа ХIХ–ХХ вв. можно обозначить как «дионисийское» и «аполлоническое». Об этом делении заявляет Ф. Ницше в книге «Рождение трагедии из духа музыки» (1872), впоследствии актуальные толкования понятий возникают в отечественной культуре.
Аполлонизм подразумевает под собой, по словам И. Анненского, «принцип культуры – выход в будущее через переработку прошлого». Дионисизм же утверждает тип стихийного человека, отрицающего культурные традиции, но в то же время говорит о слиянии с природой, об освобождении души от всего бренного.
2. В литературном творчестве символисты тяготели к дионисийству больше, чем акмеисты. Если сравнивать В. Брюсова с А. Блоком, то особенно последний уповал на обновление мира стихийностью даже тогда, когда она несла очевидную гибельность (об этом он из последних сил пишет и в поэме «Двенадцать»). Мотив варварства, разрушения чужой культуры в произведениях О. Мандельштама окрашен противоположной авторской оценкой.
Стихотворение В. Брюсова «Грядущие гунны» (1904–1905) построено на мотиве ожидания стихийной силы. Героическое начало связано у В. Брюсова с порывом радикального преобразования мира. Главный символ произведения – образ гуннов – трактуется неоднозначно. Он связан как с прошлым, так и с настоящим; представляет собой как угрозу, так и стихию, которая улучшит мир («всколосите веселое поле»). По мысли В. Брюсова, героизм заключается не в самих разрушениях, а в том, что на эти разрушения, преобразования нужно решиться.
По принципу сопряжения исторического прошлого с настоящим построено и стихотворение А. Блока «Скифы» (1918), в котором звучит мотив угрозы «старому миру», исходящей от скифов: если мир не изменится, не «опомнится», то наступит его неизбежная гибель.
В. Брюсов и А. Блок пишут свои произведения в сложный для России период – в послереволюционное время. Именно в этот момент поэты особенно сильно ощущают перемены, непредсказуемость будущего. Таким образом, общей у поэтов является мысль о катарсическом преображении мира после нашествия стихийных людей. В таком отношении поэтов к прошлому, к изменению жизни и проявляется их «дионисийский» тип мировосприятия.
3. В стихотворении «О временах простых и грубых…» (1914) акмеиста О. Мандельштама важна мысль о постоянном взаимодействии прошлого и настоящего. Действительность, культура – все основано на традициях прошлого, в настоящем мы можем услышать его отголоски. Идея сохранения культурного наследия подчеркивает в О. Мандельштаме аполлонический тип мировосприятия.
Итак, проблема судьбы культуры особенно важна для ХХ в. и нашего времени. В эпоху «серебряного века» в поэзии символистов открыто прозвучал настрой рискнуть вековыми культурными богатствами, поверить варварской силе. Но, думается, современному человеку отрадно осознавать, что уже тогда, в начале прошлого века, среди стихий, гроз и бездомности символисткой поэзии рождался новый тип личности – герой-строитель О. Мандельштама.
THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF THOMAS ELIOT –
POEMS IS SPIRIT CRISIS THROUGH METAPHOR И.В. Родина / I.V. Rodina
This article is dedicated to the difficult problem of Thomas Eliot poems which like a spirit crisis through metaphor. In his essays, especially the later ones, Eliot advocates a traditionalism in religion, society, and literature that seems at odds with his pioneer activity as a poet. He has followed his belief that poetry should aim at a representation of the complexities of modern civilization in language and that such representation necessarily leads to difficult poetry.
In Russia literary criticism it is accepted to speak about several stages of creativity of Eliot – the first: 1915–1922, coming to an end with creation of a poem «The Waste land»; the second: 1922–1930 the poem «Ash Wednesday» becomes which ending. It «revision of its sights» and if the poem which name turned readers to chaos of modern life the name of the poem finishing the second stage, sends to is religious-Catholic ceremonies was a result of the first poetic stage also speaks. It is accepted to allocate the third stage of creativity of Eliot after 1930 is time of a writing of a poem «Four Quartets» (1936–1943), tragedies «Murder in a Cathedral» and other four plays, in our country insufficiently investigated. Products of the third stage, except a poem and tragedy, as a whole it is considered to be in domestic literary criticism display of creative decline of the poet.
Estimations of some the phenomena of the literature at Eliot are biased. Special malevolence the authors dividing romantic understanding of poetry, and also advocates of humanism caused in it as preconditions of the art creativity possessing high ethical value. The humanism philosophy was rejected by Eliot as he considered that the idea of free and ego-tripping individuality has lost under itself soil.
Special value had the interpretation of essence of art put forward by Eliot which urged to express «consciousness eternal the same as also consciousness today's, – eternal and today's in their unity». The big development in works under the literature theory has received and stated by Eliot in work about «Hamlet» idea of «an objective correlate»: it was a question of necessity strictly to coordinate the emotional beginning and a concrete reconstruction of a psychological reality, about «experience formulas», соотносимых with certain «sequence» of objects, a situation, a chain of events».
Eliot's creativity also is reconsideration of philosophy, history, culture, the consciousness maintenance. As he considered, occurrence of a new work of art influences both all future, and on last creations.
Eliot's poetry is notorious for its difficulty. He had not been writing long before numerous critics started interpreting his poems and offering different «keys» and «guides» to their meaning. Eliot himself wrote many books and reviews with a full exposition of his [literary theories, and his criticism is, perhaps, no less important than his poetical works. One of his ideas has a direct bearing upon his own poetry and its difficulty: «Genuine poetry», «he declared», «can communicate before it is understood». This was meant to justify his tortuous style and the immense complexities of his language.
These difficulties originate in Eliot's effort to render the quick tempo, the discordant facts, the sharp contradictions of modern bourgeois life in terms that would be adequate to its chaos. To do so Eliot introduces a technique based on the presentation of experience in symbolic form.
The amount and variety of material synthesized by Eliot is bewildering and requires a sound knowledge of things literary, linguistic, philosophic, religious, historical to be followed in all their ramifications. The synthesis involves the creation of a new mythology as a source of new symbols, as well as use of ancient, oriental and biblical mythology. It involves, besides, an infinitely elaborate process of associative thinking – not the natural and more or less obvious one that the romantics had attached so great an importance to, but one where associations mostly are so remote as to be practically unintelligible to the general reader. This does not in the least trouble T.S. Eliot. His poetic and ideological evolution culminated in scorn of «every man». He repeatedly asserted his belief that culture must exist on several levels, from the lowest to the superior kind, fit only for the elite. With the years Eliot's views became reactionary enough for him to announce that he was a royalist in politics, an Anglo-Catholic in religion and a classicist in poetry. His antidemocratic leanings became more and more clearly pronounced, and they could not but be reflected in his poetry. After the 30's his influence decidedly waned. But in the period immediately preceding (and also succeeding) the First World War he was the spokesman of the tragic feeling of futility and frustration that had seized the British intellectuals, and he expressed these feelings in a way that seemed to open new vistas for poetry. «Without making a single direct statement Eliot [...] constructs all his ideas in the form of concrete images which do their work by their impact on the reader's senses, making him feel the form of the abstract ideas behind the passage» [1, p. 47]. «Any memory of the past is transformed into a realization of the shoddiness and the triviality of the present» [1, p. 47].
We do not know much of the future
Except that from generation to generation
The same things happen again and again.
These words occur in a later work of Eliot's, but the idea had been behind everything he wrote from the outset of his life as a poet.
Eliot's attitude towards contemporary life is part tragic, part mocking. Despair at the contrast between the world of today and the old world that to Eliot seems to embody the vitality and order from which the moderns are cut off, goes hand in hand with sardonic detachment and scorn of the pitiful problems of contemporary life, and its pitiful standards.
In that fusion of tragedy and irony, of lofty inspiration and association with low subjects Eliot follows the example of John Donne and other «metaphysical» poets of the 17th century. Eliot's range from light to serious, from the highly tragical to grotesque answered the demands of the generations of pre- and post-war intelligentsia. «Alliance of levity and seriousness [...] implies a constant inspection and criticism of experience; it involves a recognition, implicit in the expression of every experience, of other kinds of experience which are possible» [2, p. 11, 252]. According to Eliot – and here he was at the head of the new movement in poetry, – a poet embodies thought rather than feeling, for poetry is not «a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion, not an expression of personality, but escape from personality».
Eliot in the beginning «The Burial of the Dead» connects a theme of revival-in-death with a metaphorical symbol of a lilac (lilac). The death theme is reflected in keywords and expressions, such as «the dead land», «a dead sound», «my brother wreck», «where the dead men lost their bones», «he who was living is now dead», «we who were living are now dying», «dead mountain». In it keywords and expressions are metaphoric. They represent the simple and expanded metaphors.
The similar developed metaphors help the author to sound a composite metaphor in the poem and are of special interest. The composite metaphor covers all text, and is quite defensible it is possible to consider the poems context entirely as a composite metaphor. There is a sensation that the storyteller opposes to the sensual desires plunging it in the world of fictitious activity, not having sense and not mediated by spirit. Eliot attached great value to sounding of the verses which, in its opinion, should remind magic spells or church chanting. Records of reading of the products by it have remained. It is known that they made strong impression, but often and disappointed the listeners, hoping to hear something like «interpretation» of more and more becoming complicated poetry by its author.
The bibliography
1. Drew Е. Directions in Modern Poetry. – N.Y., 1940.
2. Matthiessen F.O. The Achievements of T.S. Eliot. – N.Y. ; L. ; Oxford, 1947.
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: |
