Which of the Russian poets of the 19th-20th centuries. created ironic variations on classical plots and how can they be compared with Vysotsky’s poem? Nikolaev A
Plot analysis is one of the most common and fruitful methods of interpretation. literary text. At a primitive level, it is accessible to almost any reader. When, for example, we try to retell a book we liked to a friend, we actually begin to isolate the main plot links. However, professional plot analysis is a task of a completely different level of complexity. A philologist, armed with special knowledge and mastering methods of analysis, will see much more in the same plot than an ordinary reader.
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce students to the basics of a professional approach to plotting.
Classic plot theory. Plot elements. Plot and plot. Terminological apparatusClassical plot theory, V general outline formed back in Ancient Greece, proceeds from the fact that the main components of plotting are events and actions. Events woven into actions, as Aristotle believed, constitute a plot - the basis of any epic and dramatic work. Let us immediately note that the term fabula does not appear in Aristotle; this is the result of a Latin translation. Aristotle's original myth. This nuance then played a cruel joke with literary terminology, since the differently translated “myth” led to modern times to terminological confusion. Below we will dwell in more detail on the modern meanings of the terms plot and fabula.
Aristotle associated the unity of the plot with the unity and completeness of the action, and not the hero; in other words, the integrity of the plot is ensured not by the fact that we meet one character everywhere (if we talk about Russian literature, then, for example, Chichikov), but by the fact that all the characters are involved into a single action. Insisting on the unity of action, Aristotle singled out the beginning and the denouement as necessary elements of the plot. The tension of the action, in his opinion, is supported by several special techniques: peripeteia (a sharp turn from bad to good and vice versa), recognition (in the very in a broad sense words) and related errors of misrecognition, which Aristotle believed integral part tragedy. For example, in Sophocles’ tragedy “Oedipus the King,” the intrigue of the plot is supported by Oedipus’ failure to recognize his father and mother.
Besides, ancient literature She often used metamorphoses (transformations) as the most important technique for constructing a plot. Plots are filled with metamorphoses Greek myths, this is the name of one of the most significant works of ancient culture - a cycle of poems by the famous Roman poet Ovid, which is a poetic adaptation of many plots of Greek mythology. Metamorphoses retain their significance in plots latest literature. Suffice it to recall N. V. Gogol’s stories “The Overcoat” and “The Nose”, M. A. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” and others. Lovers modern literature may recall V. Pelevin’s novel “The Life of Insects”. In all these works, the moment of transformation plays a fundamental role.
The classical theory of plot, developed and refined by the aesthetics of modern times, remains relevant today. Another thing is that time, naturally, has made its own adjustments to it. In particular, the term collision, introduced in the 19th century by G. Hegel, has become widely used. A collision is not just an event; This is an event that violates some established order. “At the basis of a collision,” writes Hegel, “is a violation that cannot be preserved as a violation, but must be eliminated.” Hegel astutely noted that for the formation of a plot and the development of plot dynamics, disruption is necessary. This thesis, as we will see later, plays an important role in the latest theories plot.
The Aristotelian scheme “commencement - denouement” received further development in German literary criticism of the 19th century (primarily, this is associated with the name of the writer and playwright Gustav Freitag) and, after going through a series of clarifications and terminological treatments, received a name known to many from school classic scheme plot structure: exposition (background for the beginning of the action) – plot (the beginning of the main action) – development of the action – climax (highest tension) – denouement.
Today, any teacher uses these terms, called plot elements. The name is not very good, since with other approaches, completely different concepts act as plot elements. However, this is generally accepted in the Russian tradition, so there is hardly any point in dramatizing the situation. You just need to remember that when we say plot elements, we mean different things depending on the overall concept of the plot. This point will become clearer as we look at alternative theories of plot.
It is customary to distinguish (quite conventionally) mandatory and optional elements. The mandatory ones include those without which a classic plot is completely impossible: plot – development of action – climax – denouement. Optional ones are those that are not found in a number of works (or many). This often includes exposition (although not all authors think so), prologue, epilogue, afterword, etc. Prologue is a story about events that ended before the start of the main action and shed light on everything that happens. Classical Russian literature did not actively use prologues, so it is difficult to choose an example that is well-known to everyone. For example, “Faust” by I. Goethe begins with a prologue. The main action is related to the fact that Mephistopheles leads Faust through life, achieving famous phrase “Stop, just a moment, you’re beautiful.” In the prologue we're talking about
about another: God and Mephistopheles make a bet about a person. Is it possible to have a person who will not give up his soul for any temptation? The honest and talented Faust is chosen as the subject of this bet. After this prologue, the reader understands why Mephistopheles knocked on Faust’s closet, why he needs the soul of this particular person.
The epilogue is much more familiar to us - a narration about the fate of the heroes after the denouement of the main action and / or the author’s reflections on the problems of the work. Let us remember “Fathers and Sons” by I. S. Turgenev, “War and Peace” by L. N. Tolstoy - there we will find classic examples of epilogues.
The role of inserted episodes, author's digressions, etc. is not entirely clear. Sometimes (for example, in the textbook by O. I. Fedotov) they are included in the concept of plot, but more often they are taken beyond its boundaries.
In general, it should be admitted that the given plot scheme, despite its popularity, has many flaws.
Firstly, not all works are constructed according to this scheme; secondly, it in no way exhausts the plot analysis.
Firstly, Aristotle's thesis about the relative autonomy of plot from character is called into question. According to Aristotle, the plot is determined by events, and the characters themselves play in it, at best, a subordinate role. Today this thesis is questionable. Let’s compare the definition of action given by V. E. Khalizev: “Actions are manifestations of a person’s emotions, thoughts and intentions in his actions, movements, spoken words, gestures, facial expressions.” It is clear that with this approach we will no longer be able to separate the action and the hero. Ultimately, action itself is determined by character.
This is an important change of emphasis, changing the angle of view in the study of the plot. To feel this, let’s ask a simple question: “What is the main spring of the development of action, for example, in “Crime and Punishment” by F. M. Dostoevsky? Interest in the crime event is brought to life by the character of Raskolnikov or, on the contrary, the character of Raskolnikov requires precisely such a plot disclosure?
According to Aristotle, the first answer dominates; modern scientists are more likely to agree with the second. The literature of modern times often “hides” external events, shifting the center of gravity to psychological nuances. The same V. E. Khalizev in another work, analyzing Pushkin’s “Feast of time of plague“, noticed that in Pushkin, instead of the dynamics of events, internal action dominates.
In addition, the question of what the plot is made up of, and where is the minimum “piece of action” that is subject to plot analysis, remains debatable. A more traditional point of view is that the actions and actions of the characters should be at the center of plot analysis. In its extreme form, it was once expressed by A. M. Gorky in “Conversation with the Young” (1934), where the author identifies three most important foundations of the work: language, theme/idea and plot. Gorky interpreted the latter as “connections, contradictions, sympathies, antipathies and, in general, relationships between people, the history of growth and organization of one nature or another.” Here the emphasis is clearly placed on the fact that the plot is based on character development, therefore, plot analysis turns, in essence, into an analysis of the supporting links in the development of the hero’s character. Gorky's pathos is quite understandable and historically explainable, but theoretically such a definition is incorrect. Such an interpretation of the plot is applicable only to very to a narrow circle literary works.
The opposite point of view was formulated in the academic publication of the theory of literature by V. V. Kozhinov. His concept took into account many of the latest theories of that time and was that the plot is “a sequence of external and internal movements of people and things.” There is a plot wherever there is a sense of movement and development. In this case, the gesture becomes the smallest “piece” of the plot, and the study of the plot is an interpretation of the system of gestures.
The attitude towards this theory is ambiguous, since, on the one hand, the theory of gestures allows you to see the non-obvious, on the other hand, there is always a danger of “pulling down” the plot too much, losing the boundaries of big and small. With this approach, it is very difficult to separate plot analysis from stylistic analysis itself, since we are actually talking about the analysis of the verbal fabric of the work.
At the same time, studying the gestural structure of a work can be very useful. A gesture should be understood as any manifestation of character in action. A spoken word, an action, a physical gesture - all this becomes subject to interpretation. Gestures can be dynamic (that is, the actual action) or static (that is, the absence of action against some changing background). In many cases, it is the static gesture that is most expressive. Let us remember, for example,
famous poem
Akhmatova "Requiem". As you know, the biographical background of the poem is the arrest of the son of the poetess L. N. Gumilyov. However, this tragic fact of biography is rethought by Akhmatova on a much larger scale: socio-historical (as an accusation against the Stalinist regime) and moral-philosophical (as an eternal repetition of the motive of an unjust trial and maternal grief). Therefore, the poem constantly has a background: the drama of the thirties of the twentieth century is “shine through” with the motive of the execution of Christ and the grief of Mary. And then the famous lines are born:
Magdalena struggled and sobbed.
The beloved student turned to stone.
The dynamics here are created by the contrast of gestures, of which the most expressive is the silence and immobility of the Mother. Akhmatova here plays on the paradox of the Bible: none of the Gospels describe the behavior of Mary during the torture and execution of Christ, although it is known that she was present at this. According to Akhmatova, Maria stood silently and watched as her son was tortured. But her silence was so expressive and creepy that everyone was afraid to look in her direction. Therefore, the authors of the Gospels, having described in detail the torment of Christ, do not mention his mother - this would be even more terrible.
Akhmatova’s lines are a brilliant example of how deep, intense and expressive a writer can be. talented artist static gesture.
So, modern modifications of the classical theory of plot one way or another recognize the connection between plot and character, while the question remains open about the “elementary level” of the plot - whether it is an event/action or a gesture. Obviously, you shouldn’t look for definitions “for all occasions.” In some cases, it is more correct to interpret the plot through a gestural structure; in others, where the gestural structure is less expressive, it can be abstracted to one degree or another, focusing on larger plot units.
Another not very clear point in the assimilation of the classical tradition is the relationship between the meanings of the terms plot and plot. At the beginning of our conversation about the plot, we already said that this problem is historically connected with errors in the translation of Aristotle’s Poetics. As a result, the terminological “dual power” arose. At one time (approximately until the end of the 19th century) these terms were used as synonyms. Then, as the plot analysis became more nuanced, the situation changed. The plot began to be understood as events as such, and the plot - their real representation in the work. That is, the plot began to be understood as a “realized plot.” The same plot could be produced into different plots. It is enough to remember how many works, for example, are built around the plot of the Gospels.
This tradition is associated primarily with the theoretical quests of Russian formalists of the 10s - 20s of the twentieth century (V. Shklovsky, B. Eikhenbaum, B. Tomashevsky, etc.). However, it must be admitted that their work did not differ in theoretical clarity, so the terms plot and plot were often swapped, which completely confused the situation.
The formalist traditions were directly or indirectly adopted by Western European literary criticism, so today in different manuals we find different, sometimes opposing, understandings of the meaning of these terms.
Let's focus only on the most basic ones.
1. Plot and plot are synonymous concepts; any attempts to separate them only unnecessarily complicate the analysis.
As a rule, it is recommended to abandon one of the terms, most often the plot. This point of view was popular among some Soviet theorists (A. I. Revyakin, L. I. Timofeev, etc.). In the later period, one of the “troublemakers”, V. Shklovsky, came to similar conclusions, who at one time insisted on the separation of plot and plot. However, among modern specialists this point of view is not dominant.
2. The plot is “pure” events, without fixing any connection between them. As soon as events become connected in the author’s mind, the plot becomes a plot. “The king died and then the queen died” is a plot. “The king died and the queen died of grief” is the plot. This point of view is not the most popular, but is found in a number of sources. The disadvantage of this approach is the non-functionality of the term “plot”. In fact, the plot seems to be simply a chronicle of events.
3. The plot is the main event series of the work, the plot is its artistic treatment. According to Ya. Zundelovich, “the plot is the outline, the plot is the pattern.”
This point of view is very widespread both in Russia and abroad, which is reflected in a number of encyclopedic publications. Historically, this point of view goes back to the ideas of A. N. Veselovsky (late 19th century), although Veselovsky himself did not dramatize the terminological nuances, and his understanding of the plot, as we will see below, differed from the classical one. From the school of formalists, this concept was adhered to primarily by J. Zundelovich and M. Petrovsky, in whose works plot and plot became different terms.
4. The plot is the main event series of the work in its conditionally life-like sequence (that is, the hero is first born, then something happens to him, and finally the hero dies). The plot is the entire series of events in the sequence as it is presented in the work. After all, the author (especially after the 18th century) may well begin the work, for example, with the death of the hero, and then talk about his birth. Fans of English literature may recall R. Aldington’s famous novel “Death of a Hero,” which is structured exactly like this.
Historically, this concept goes back to the most famous and authoritative theorists of Russian formalism (V. Shklovsky, B. Tomashevsky, B. Eikhenbaum, R. Yakobson, etc.), it was reflected in the first edition of the Literary Encyclopedia; It is this point of view that is presented in the already discussed article by V.V. Kozhinov, it is adhered to by many authors of modern textbooks, and it is most often found in Western European dictionaries.
In fact, the difference between this tradition and the one we described before it is not fundamental, but formal. The terms simply change their meaning. It is more important to understand that both concepts capture plot-fable inconsistencies, which gives the philologist a tool for interpretation. It is enough to recall, for example, how M. Yu. Lermontov’s novel “A Hero of Our Time” was structured. The plot arrangement of the parts clearly does not coincide with the plot, which immediately raises questions: why is this so? What does the author achieve with this?
, in the literature of modern times they sometimes play a decisive role. If we remember the already mentioned story by I. A. Bunin “The Gentleman from San Francisco,” we will easily feel that there are few plot events (arrived - died - taken away), and the tension is supported by nuances, episodes that, as it may seem, are not play a decisive role in the logic of the narrative. Which of the Russian poets of the 19th-20th centuries. created ironic variations on classic stories
When thinking about the stated problem, use the works of K.S. as a literary context. Aksakova, N.A. Nekrasova, T. Yu. Kibirova.
Emphasize that parodies and ironic variations occupy a special place among comic genres.
Note that parodies of Pushkin and Lermontov’s works were in great fashion among the poets’ contemporaries. Earlier, A.S. Pushkin and K.N. Batyushkov himself made parodies of the work of V.A. Zhukovsky "Singer in the camp of Russian warriors." Derzhavin's odes were subject to parodic re-interpretation. K. S. Aksakov became the author of a dramatic parody of Pushkin’s poem “Oleg near Constantinople.”
V.N. Almazov created rehashes of A.S. Pushkin (“Grooms”), N.A. Nekrasova (“Storm”). Contemporary N.A. Dobrolyubov D. Minaev parodied the poems of N.F. Shcherbiny, N.P. Ogareva, L.A. Meya, A.A. Maykova. Ogarev himself is known for his variation of Pushkin’s work “Once upon a time there lived a poor knight...” (for Ogarev it is fashionable). As the creator of verbal parodies, Kozma Prutkov should also be mentioned - the “brainchild” of Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy and the Zhemchuzhnikov brothers.
Remember the famous rehash of “Cossack Lullaby” by M. Yu. Lermontov, written by N.A. Nekrasov (“Lullaby”), in which a grotesque image of an official was created. Unlike Vysotsky’s ironic variation, poet XIX centuries chooses a different image for ridicule, giving it a satirical edge. Genre and compositional features are comically transformed. At Vysotsky's legendary heroes receive a different assessment, in contrast to the Pushkin ballad. The focus is now not on the tragedy of the prince, but on the eternal conflict between man and the state.
Point out that the representative of conceptualism T. Yu. Kibirov, unlike Vysotsky, creates parodies based on quotation. His arsenal includes parodies of Pushkin’s poems, “Summer Reflections on Fates belles lettres", verbal, syntactic, rhythmic, conceptual imitations of B.L. Pasternak, A.A. Voznesensky, S.V. Mikhalkov, A.P. Mezhirov, V.V. Nabokov, Yu.K. Olesha.
In your conclusions, explain the difference between parody variations and rehashes, reveal the originality of the ironic poem by V. S. Vysotsky.
) to several tens (32 variations in Beethoven's - minor).
Variation classification criteria:
1) by the number of topics - single, double, triple;
2) according to the degree of freedom to vary the theme - strict (the structure of the theme, tonality, harmonic plan is preserved) and free (any transformation of the theme is possible);
3) by the method of variation - polyphonic, figurative, textured, genre, timbre;
4) historical types variation forms:
Variations on basso ostinato;
Figurative variations;
Variations on soprano ostinato;
Free variations (characteristic);
Variant form.
Variations on basso ostinato(basso ostinato - persistent bass) appeared in the 16th-17th centuries. They are based on the constant repetition of the same melodic turn in the bass. The appearance of variations on the basso ostinato was preceded by a polyphonic form, which had an unchanged cantus firmus (Gregorian chant in which the tenor part did not change). In the XVI-XVII centuries. variations on the basso ostinato were widely used in dance music. Some ancient dances - passacaglia, chaconne, English ground and others - were variations on basso ostinato.
Passacaglia(from Spanish – to pass, street) – spanish dance- a procession performed when guests departed.
Chaconne(from Spanish - always the same) - Spanish dance of folk origin, but more lively and active.
Typical for these genres are: majestic character, unhurried development of form, slow pace, 3-beat size, minor scale (the major scale is less common and more typical for operatic basso ostinato).
Main differences. Passacaglia is a more monumental, solemn genre (for organ or instrumental ensemble). The main theme (4-8 volumes) begins with the 3rd beat, monophonic. Chaconne is a more chamber genre, performed by a solo instrument - clavier or violin, begins with the 2nd beat, and is presented in the form of a harmonic sequence.
The form of variations on the basso ostinato was preserved even after the passacaglia and chaconne lost their dance significance. The principle of basso ostinato also penetrated into the arias and choruses of operas, oratorios and cantatas of the 16th-17th centuries. Classic examples of chaconne and passacaglia in music XVIII V. represented in works by Bach (for example, the chorus “Crucifixus” from the Mass in B minor) and Handel (passacaglia from the Suite in G minor for clavier). Beethoven used variations on the basso ostinato as an element of a large form (Coda Vivace of the 7th Symphony) and as the basis of a variation-cyclic form (the finale of the 3rd Symphony).
The theme of variations on the basso ostinato can be:
Chordova (Bach. Chaconne in d-moll for solo violin);
In variations on basso ostinato, variation usually occurs in the upper voices, but changes can also concern the theme itself: various kinds figurations, transposition, transfer to the upper voice.
There are two types of theme variations on basso ostinato:
1) a closed theme that begins and ends with a tonic; in this case, the support remains the descending diatonic tetrachord (from the 1st degree to the 5th degree);
2) an open theme ends on a dominant, the moment of resolution of which coincides with the beginning of a new variation. The structure of a theme is often a period of 4-16 volumes. (“Chaconne in d minor” by Bach). The theme, as a rule, is presented first in one voice, variations are organized according to the principle of increasing the number of voices, changing modal inclination in the group of “average” variations.
Polyphonic: imitation, canon, vertically mobile counterpoint;
Diminution (proportional decrease in duration);
Reharmonization of the theme.
There are 2 ways to organize the form of variations on basso ostinato:
1) the form is divided into variations if the boundaries of the ostinato bass and upper voices coincide;
2) the form is stratified into 2 independent layers - ostinato bass and upper voices, the caesuras of which do not coincide. As a result, 2 independent forms are simultaneously formed - one in the lower voice, the other in the upper voices.
The form as a whole was characterized by education subvariations(variations on variation), combining variations into groups based on any one principle.
In the XIX-XX centuries. the significance of the variations on the basso ostinato increases (Brahms. Finale of Symphony No. 4). Going beyond variations on the basso ostinato, ostinato gradually becomes one of the important principles of formation in the music of the 19th-20th centuries. and manifests itself in the area of rhythm, harmony, melodic chants (Ravel, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Khachaturian, Kabalevsky, Britten, Orff).
basis strict (classical) variations is a theme presented mostly in a 2-part reprise form, and a number of variations. Variations are called strict because the theme in them is basically preserved: the structure, harmonic movement, and melodic basis remain unchanged. Rhythm, texture, registration and dynamics remain to be varied. The theme of the variations has an emphatically song-like (song-dance) character, is diatonic, has a small range, and a clear cadence (these features of the theme are of folk origin). Preference in structure is given to a simple 2-part form (usually a reprise), the latter variation is often written in a simple 3-part form or a simple 2-part with a coda.
All variations are outlined in main key. Around the middle of the cycle, a variation (or group of variations) occurs in tonality of the same name. This is a means of creating contrast in the development of one musical theme and gives the variations the features of a 3-part composition. In variations, another form of the second plan may appear, for example, rondo. Sometimes in strict variations one can detect features sonata form. The “sonatiness” of the variations is expressed not in tonal terms, but in the alternation of variations (groups of variations) with different principles of variation.
Classical variations have become widespread in the works of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Some cycles are small in size, consisting of 5-6 variations (I part of Beethoven's 12th sonata, I part of Mozart's 11th sonata). Sometimes there are works with a large number of variations, for example: 32 variations in c - minor by Beethoven.
So, strict (classical, ornamental, figurative) variations appeared in Western European instrumental music of the 17th-18th centuries.
Their distinctive features are:
♦ theme – original or borrowed; homophonic-harmonic nature, with a clear diatonic melody and accompaniment; calm pace, simple rhythm; middle case; form simple 2-part (Beethoven. Sonata No. 23, II movement; No. 12, I movement) or 3-part (Mozart. 12 variations. KV 265), form, period or (rarely) large sentence (Beethoven. 32 variations) ;
♦ in figurative variations all types of figurations are used: melodic, harmonic, mixed; diminution (XVI century) - rhythmic fragmentation, reduction of durations in melody and other voices;
♦ combining variations into groups based on any principle of variation - rhythmic, tonal, textural, based on diminution; by tone;
♦ completion of the variation cycle: carrying out the theme in its original form or the final variation at a fast tempo with the shortest durations (performs the function of a coda or includes a coda).
Strict variations include the type variations on soprano ostinato, which arose in the work of Glinka (hence another name - Glinka variations). In this type of variation, the theme (melody) remains the same. Variation is carried out mainly by means of harmony (Persian chorus from the opera “Ruslan and Lyudmila” by Glinka). The primary source of the new type of variation form was the verse structure of the Russian folk song. In choral form, this form is called verse-variation.
In the 20th century the form of variations on soprano ostinato was transferred to instrumental music (“Bolero” by Ravel, the invasion episode from Part I of Shostakovich’s 7th Symphony).
The theme of the variations on soprano ostinato can be original or borrowed (“The baby was leaving” - Marfa’s song from the opera “Khovanshchina” by Mussorgsky). Theme form is a large sentence or period (Rimsky-Korsakov. Sadko’s song “Oh, you, dark oak tree” from the 2nd chapter), a simple 2-part non-reprising (Rimsky-Korsakov. 3rd song of Lelya from the 3rd chapter, “Cloud with thunder” conspired"), simple 2-part reprisal (Glinka. Persian chorus from the 3rd movement of the opera "Ruslan and Lyudmila"), rarely simple 3-part (Grig. "In the Cave mountain king"from the suite "Peer Gynt").
Theme and Variations
If you've ever watched the movie Groundhog Day with Bill Murray (or Beware of Closing Doors, The Butterfly Effect, Back to the Future...), then you already know what a theme with variations is.
In these films, with each twist in the plot, the images of the heroes or the circumstances in which these heroes find themselves are modified, but at the same time, some things necessarily remain unchanged.
No matter where the action takes place - in the present, past or future - Marty McFly's enemies still get tipped over by a trailer of manure; Gwyneth Paltrow's heroine in both scenarios meets her future boyfriend; Weather columnist Phil Connors wakes up again and again in a Punxsutawney hotel room on Groundhog Day, February 2nd, and most He has already learned the events that await him that day by heart, although thanks to his intervention they “sound” differently each time.
Musical variations are constructed using approximately the same principle (not literally, of course:), only in them the theme song. In each version (\u003d variation) it is painted with ever new colors, and ideally, it also turns with ever new facets, acquires ever new features (in this case it is not necessary to follow its metamorphoses).
Pieces written in the form of a theme with variations are simply a godsend for virtuosos who benefit from showing off by presenting to the listener at once everything they are capable of (, various brilliant...)
Although, of course, the task before the performer here is not only technical. After all, good variations also require a variety of artistic images, characters, moods: here you need to be at the same time a violinist, an artist and an artist, and be able to transform.
Variations by Paganini, Ernst, Khandoshkin
Paganini was very fond of variations. Already in his first solo concert, which he gave at the age of 11, he also played his own variations on the revolutionary song “Carmagnola”. Later, Paganini composed many variations on romantic themes: among them “The Witch” on a theme from the ballet “The Wedding of Benevento” by Süssmayr, “Prayer” on one string on a theme from the opera “Moses” by Rossini, “I am no longer sad at the hearth” on the theme from the opera “Cinderella” by Rossini, “Tremor of the Heart” on a theme from the opera “Tancred” by Rossini, “How the Heart Floats” on a theme from the opera “La Belle Miller’s Wife” by Paisiello. The most “armor-piercing” Paganini variations in technique are on the theme of the English anthem “God Save the Queen!”
The famous 24th Paganini, by the way, also consists entirely of variations. The theme of the caprice - daring, rebellious - undoubtedly should have appealed to the taste of the Carbonari at one time. It is followed by variations that reveal the potential of the theme with different sides. The first - sparkling beads of the volatile fall in cascades, the second - a gloomy minor lace is intertwined with sharp ones, the third - a lyrical sad melody performed by deep ones. And then seven more variations, including variations, and with the left hand, and the finale of and broken lines, forming, as it were, several “terraces”. All this must not just be played, but so that the listener feels as if he is being led through the enfilades of the same building: there must be development, movement forward and a convincing conclusion.
Another famous virtuoso of past eras, Heinrich Ernst, also could not ignore the genre of themes and variations. He left us “The Last Rose of Summer,” which now (together with “God Save the Queen!”) scares beginning violinists, and the public at the same time. This extremely difficult piece to perform is written on the theme of the Scottish song of the same name with lyrics by Thomas More. Those who are not delighted with the technical bells and whistles of “Rose” vindictively call it stupid in content and poor in music. But they are unfair to “Rose”. After all, the main thing for variations in it is a wonderful theme. There is also a plot that is quite capable of feeding the imagination. If you read carefully, and then work on the image, phrasing, while listening to the same song in other traditions (performed by Clannad, for example... or opera diva Lily Pons, or Deanna Durbin...) - then the game with this piece will be completely different. But in order for it to be enjoyable, it is necessary, of course, to emphasize the theme, to play it beautiful sound despite all the and wrapped around it. That is, it is still necessary sing…
“Russian Paganini” Khandoshkin was also a fan of virtuoso variations. He took Russians as his topic folk songs, which acquired under his fingers a new, seemingly unusual shine and color. His song “A Birch Tree Stood in the Field” sounded temperamental and almost rebellious—we probably wouldn’t have guessed about its nature without Khandoshkin.
Philosophical variations
Not only the most virtuosic, but also the deepest in content violin works (“Folia” by Corelli, “Chaconne” by Bach) are written in the form of variations.
The philosophical potential of variations is great because life itself is multivariate. And although in reality we have to choose only one of the existing options (that is, we are deprived of the opportunity to see life in all its diversity), in music we can do things differently. By observing how the same topic develops in different planes, we can come to many interesting thoughts and even - who knows? - perhaps it is better to understand the structure of all living things.
I read it and understood everything: what I wrote the play “Troikasevenmerkatuz” about.)))))
: SLAVIA ORIENTALIS Anna Maroń Rzeszów
SLAVIA ORIENTALIS toM lXI, NR 2, RoK 2012
Anna Maroń Rzeszów
At the turn of the 20th–21st centuries in Russian drama, one of the distinct trends is a turn to classical works in the form of remakes. At the same time, modern playwrights turn to both domestic and foreign works. Processes of traditionalization are noted eternal stories, as well as intertextuality, play and deconstruction characteristic of postmodernism. A number of works devoted to intertextuality (S. Balbus, R. Nych and others) note the ambiguity of understanding the boundary between the intertextual saturation of the text and the creation of some form of alteration, stylization, that is, not an original work of art, but something secondary. It is not always possible to understand when we are dealing with intertext and when we can already talk about a remake.
This facet is noted in her work by M. Zagidullina, who writes that “the difference between a remake and the intertextuality of modern literature lies in the advertised and emphasized orientation towards a specific classical model, with the expectation of recognition.” source text“(moreover, not a separate allusion element, but the entire body of the original).”
Since the theoretical aspects of remakes have been little developed in modern literary criticism, there is no clear definition of them and no clear classification of them. However, attempts to characterize the phenomenon are found in T. Rotobylskaya, who proposes their classification based on the material of Belarusian drama. Her observations are complemented and clarified by the Belarusian literary critic E.G. Tara relies in her research on modern Russian drama. He also offers his own definition of a remake as “a technique of artistic deconstruction of well-known classical plots.” works of art, in which the authors recreate, rethink, develop or play with it in a new way at the level of genre, plot, idea, issue, characters.”
So, based on the analysis of modern plays, Tarazevich identifies “five ways of “remaking” classical works: remake-motif, remake-sequel, remake-contamination, remake-banter and remake-reproduction”4. The remake motif gives a new ideological artistic interpretation the main motive of the original source.
Similar plays include The Cherry Orchard by A. Slapovsky, the play Raskolnikov and the Angel by M. Gatchinsky or The Sakhalin Wife by E. Gremina. The remake sequel continues the plot of the original text. Such remakes include the plays Anna Karenina-2 by O. Shishkin, Cinderella before and after L. Filatov, Hamlet-2 by G. Nebolita or The cherries are ripe in Uncle Vanya’s garden by V. Zabaluev and A. Zenzinov. Remake banter is a deconstruction, recoding of the original, the purpose of which is to rethink the problems that the classics posed.
In this type of “remaking,” playwrights often transform artistic system source text.
Such remakes were created by O. Bogaev and S. Kuznetsov There is no sadder story in the world, V. Zabaluev and A. Zenzinov The cherries ripened in Uncle Vanya’s garden. A remake-contamination can even combine several classic plots. An example is the plays of Y. Barkhatov Hamlet and Juliet and L. Filatov Once again about the naked king, and a remake-reproduction is considered an “adaptation”, a re-actualization of a classic text. The latter type includes the plays The Death of Ilya Ilyich by M. Ugarov, as well as the Royal Games by G. Gorin. The phenomenon of remake, characteristic of modern Russian drama, is especially indicative of the work of Nikolai Kolyada, one of the most outstanding playwrights of the present time.
The most a shining example the play Dreisiebenass (Three-seven-catus) could serve, or Queen of Spades(1998), as the author himself defines it, “this is a dramatic fantasy on the themes of the story by Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin.”
It is necessary to mention that Kolyada not only himself wrote his own interpretation of the classic’s work, but also encouraged his students to write their variations on the themes of Pushkin’s stories, which were included in the collection Metel (1999).
Nikolai Kolyada, like a classic, begins his play with an epigraph about the Queen of Spades, meaning secret malevolence, adding to it an excerpt from Pushkin’s text: “... she ran to her room, took out a letter from behind her glove: it was not sealed. Lizaveta Ivanovna read it. The letter contained a declaration of love: it was tender, respectful and taken word for word from a German novel. But Lizaveta Ivanovna did not speak German and was very pleased with it...”
In the play Dreisiebenass (Three-Seven-Katuz), or The Queen of Spades, the playwright’s intention to play with the German language is already visible from the beginning, and indeed, in Kolyada’s work we count 169 statements in German, while Pushkin’s text is completely free from them. The parodic accent is the German phrase, deliberately written in Russian, at the end of the play, when Herman says: “Ich bin Russe.”
We assume that this technique serves, on the one hand, as an ironic indication of the stereotypical idea of Germany as a country of bourgeois and philistines (traditional for Russian literature). Kolyada wanted to highlight these features through German speech in the image of Herman.
On the other hand, maybe using German language explained by his friendship with Alexander Kahl, a German translator of modern Russian drama. In his play, Kolyada conducts a kind of dialogue with the classic, citing direct quotes as part of the author’s remarks. However, the most important discrepancy with the original text is that the playwright completely changes the mystical convention of Pushkin’s text. Kolyada has no mystery: the three cards are known to everyone from the very beginning of the play, at the end of which the phrase “three, seven, ace - dreisiebenass” turns only into a manic obsession of the crazy Herman. Pushkin's Herman is full of mystery; his participation in the game became a big event, even a sensation. He believes in the role of providence, a happy accident, and is a kind of fatalist. He suffers punishment - fate because of the crime he committed against the freedom of human will. The source of punishment is his fetish - play. German Kolyada is completely deprived of this; he, like other heroes of Kolyada, is a lonely person, lost in the world, not understood by anyone. No one wants to communicate with him, even just to find out what kind of person he is, what he expects from life. He is humiliated, insulted, and becomes an object of ridicule. Herman in Kolyada’s play runs away to his small apartment - the only place where he feels safe. Here his German origin is not a problem, and the Russian language does not cause difficulties for him. In Pushkin's Herman, everyone notices Napoleon's exceptional profile, since he is also self-centered and despises human dignity. In Kolyada's play, only Liza, with whom she is connected, sees this. story line Along with Herman, both of them act as the main characters. This intention of the playwright is also emphasized by the interpreted Pushkin epigraph about the freshness of the chambermaids.
N. Kolyada also deprives all his other heroes of romance. His countess in no way resembles a grand dame. Liza calls her “draisibenas,” giving this image a grotesque character, since the countess in Nikolai Kolyada’s play is deprived of the respect of society. All the heroes of Kolyada - ordinary people, who live everyday life: Lisa wants to get married, Tomsky wants to receive an inheritance after the death of his aunt countess. However, in Kolyada's play the theme of wealth fades into another plane; it is not as important as in Pushkin - this is symbolized by the repeated gesture when his characters throw money into the street.
At the end of the play, Herman himself demonstrates such a parody gesture. Kolyada depicts the immorality of the consciousness of the new society, in which interpersonal relationships are formed on the basis of personal gain. N. Kolyada in his play deliberately omits some Pushkin themes and shifts the emphasis to the depiction of the empty life of Tomsky and his friends. The modern playwright made the main theme of the drama the loneliness of Herman, who was broken by incomprehension by society, isolation from it and the inability to find understanding. Nikolai Kolyada also reveals the conflict of the collision of two cultures, two civilizations, and, as a consequence of this, misunderstanding and enmity between the heroes.
In a completely different way, Nikolai Kolyada conducts a dialogue with the Pushkin tradition in the play Mozart and Salieri (2002), reminiscent of a remake motif in which the modern playwright gives his artistic interpretation of the theme of “genius and villainy.”
Interest in the real “little tragedy” of A.S. Pushkin is also explained by the relevance of the problem of the incompatibility of the humanism of art with sinful envy of genius. The appeal to Pushkin's text begins with the title itself - the names of Pushkin's heroes - composers are widely known, but in Nikolai Kolyada his heroes are nameless. Further, in the author’s preface, the Ural playwright characterizes his work as follows:
“This is a play for two. Once upon a time, the First wrote film scripts, and the Second was a film director. The First came to visit him without socks, barefoot, for which he was kicked out of the Second’s house. Years have passed. The first became a rich man, a businessman, but the second never fit into the “new situation” - he cannot make films. They are again
met. And the First decides to take revenge on the Second. Although, probably, he is taking revenge on himself, who has become different.” The present author's paratext again refers us to Pushkin's play. This impression is also facilitated by other techniques: the small volume of both plays (only three scenes in Pushkin and only one action in Kolyada), the inclusion of Pushkin’s work on the principle of text within the text, direct quotes from the original text, as well as the composition of the play itself - introducing the beginning of the conflict into the heroes' past.
Consequently, the action takes place in the apartment of the Second, whom the First ironically calls “the Sun”, “the luminary” - this may refer precisely to the stereotypical perception of the image of Pushkin - the “sun of Russian poetry”. N. Kolyada translates the high pathos of tragedy into the language of tragicomedy, giving Pushkin’s problems a relativistic character. The mixture of tragic and comic can be seen in all structural levels plays: in the characters and in the conflict situation itself.
Her travesty is indicated from the very beginning, when Kolyada transfers the action to post-Soviet reality, and in author's remark the banality is emphasized in the following way modern life: « Two-roomed flat. A wall with crystal vases, a sofa, two armchairs, a Soviet polished coffee table, a balcony, white curtains. On the wall is a portrait of a man with a black ribbon in the corner. (…) Nothing special. Everything is banal and typical, somehow completely Soviet.” It seems that it is precisely with this organization of the background of action that Nikolai Kolyada confronts the philistine, kitsch consciousness, which is focused on things, objects, with a creative consciousness, with inspiration. The characters of Kolyada themselves talk about the facelessness and banality of the former film director’s apartment.
FIRST. (...) Your apartment looks like some kind of decoration. SECOND (laughs). yes, yes, from some film about Western life... Thanks to this technique, Kolyada also emphasizes the inferiority of modern “geniuses”, reveals their theatrical behavior and raises the question of the authenticity of the “genius nature”. Pushkin's Mozart and Salieri are heroes from the world of creativity, high art, the heroes of Kolyada are tragicomic - they balance between the position of a genius and a clown. The second is compared to Mozart, but unlike the great composer, he is a film director - a drunk, ready to humiliate himself for the sake of money to shoot another mediocre film. The first - like Salieri - is pragmatic, cruel and despotic, wants to take revenge for the humiliation he experienced in his youth. FIRST. (...) Oh, revenge! It's you I want to take revenge on, you know? I don’t remember anyone from that drunken childhood of mine, but here’s the thing: you, you, you, scoundrel, scoundrel, scoundrel, scoundrel, you kicked me out barefoot into the cold, in the hope that I would sit at your doorstep and whine, whine, ask for forgiveness, kicked me out - I will never forget this!!!
However, Kolyada also reveals the game consciousness of its hero, for example, in the scene when the First remembers a book from his childhood, The Island of Lost Ships, with the final pages torn off. Reading it, each time he came up with a new ending. Thus, the playful attitude towards the world manifests itself at the deep levels of the poetics of the work. The entire play of Kolyada is built on the dissonance of classical quotes (reminiscences) and reduced everyday vocabulary. In the speech of the characters, high and low are mixed, thus, the Ural playwright reduces and depreciates the image of a modern genius.
Famous phrase Kolyada’s heroes trivialize the incompatibility between “genius and villain.” This is where kitsch consciousness manifests itself - everything is assessed from the point of view of the objective (“material”) world.
FIRST. I am Mozart because I have money. Well said! The aphorism is straightforward. (…) FIRST. Oh, teacher, make no mistake, dear! Genius and villainy are two incompatible things. You just said that I am a genius in my field, but how can I be a pig at the same time? You've got something wrong, teacher, dear Salieri. (…) FIRST. If you drink three hundred grams, then everything seems brilliant.
At the end of the play, Kolyada leads his characters to a comic situation in which they are not capable of self-identification; reality does not justify the claims to genius of either one or the other. This is facilitated by the technique of theater within the theater, which in turn gives the conflict a grotesque connotation.
This is a wonderful setting. Unity of place, time and action. Classicism, right? Now you and I will act out a play. Do you know what it will be called? "Mozart and Salieri."
The subject of the play by the Ural playwright is different types of consciousness. For example, regulated consciousness (classicism) and consciousness free from any standards. In an apartment that looks like a stage set, the characters of Kolyada act out a scene reminiscent of Pushkin’s play, and at the climax they change places, as in real life fate gives people the opportunity to play different roles. FIRST. (...) However, why are you Salieri? Well, if you like it that way, you will be Mozart, and I will be Salieri. Oh, I love everything dark, negative, okay, I’ll be a bastard, and you stand in a beautiful pose. So!
Thus, Kolyada emphasizes the ambiguity real world, its inconsistency with literary reality. Kolyada rethinks Pushkin problem“genius and villainy”, and also raises the question of the ambiguity of choice life path. In the play Mozart and Salieri by the Ural playwright, the connection with the prototype text is somewhat weakened, since it is based not on the eternal conflict of genius and villainy, but on the theme of revenge. However, by superimposing Pushkin’s little tragedy on his picture of the world and on his understanding of life, Kolyada expands the plane of artistic consciousness, thanks to which the reader (viewer) comprehends the situation of the denouement by comparing it with the philosophy of A.S. Pushkin’s little tragedy.
A special place in the dramaturgy of Nikolai Kolyada is occupied by adaptations and variations on themes from the works of N. Gogol. An example of this is the play Old World Landowners, a remake of the story of the same name by Nikolai Gogol. Kolyada explains his appeal to this text by the fact that he was asked to write a play for the anniversary of actress Liya Akhedzhakova, who really liked this particular story by N.V. Gogol. Moreover, Kolyada explained his appeal to Gogol’s story in one of his interviews as follows: “Old-world landowners appeared because I felt that at that time I had to break myself, step away from my “carols” for a while, write something else »
The Ural playwright spoke about his approach to this work and his creative concept: “I picked up the story and began to leaf through 14 pages. What should I write? Then I remembered Yevtushenko’s aphorism: “Literature is a confession to yourself” - and decided to write a play about my mom and dad. Then it will be interesting to me. My parents, in the same way, spent their entire lives making pickles and preserves, and this is what their life consisted of: so that the children were well-fed, so that everything was prepared for future use. They live in their village calmly, happily, and may God grant them continued health for many, many years.”16 Nikolai Kolyada prefaced his play with an epigraph from Gogol’s “The Night Before Christmas.” The effect should also be taken into account word game, caused by juxtaposition of the verb “carol” with the playwright’s surname. “... In our country, caroling means singing songs under the windows on the eve of Christmas, which are called carols. The hostess or the owner, or the one who stays at home, will always throw sausage or a copper penny into the bag of the one who carols, whatever is rich. They say that there was once a fool Kolyada, who was mistaken for God, and that it was as if that was why carols began. Who knows? Not for us ordinary people, talk about it. Last year Father Osip forbade caroling in the farmsteads, saying that it was as if these people were pleasing Satan. However, to tell the truth, there is not a word about Kolyada in carols. They often sing about the birth of Christ; and at the end they wish health to the owner, the hostess, the children and the whole house...” Despite this quote, the playwright’s desire to move away from his “carols” is perceived as a game with the reader. Especially, the passage about Kolyada - God sounds ambiguous, metaphorical. This emphasizes the special role of the author in Kolyada’s plays, an author who is able to manipulate consciousness. The time of action in Gogol is indefinite: “it was already a very long time ago, it has already passed”
Kolyada follows the classic, removing from the text of the play the exact definition of time “The century is past or the century before last. Or maybe it’s the present century, who knows?...19” This suggests that Kolyada also had our time in mind. It should be noted that N. Gogol means cyclical time, which moves as if in a circle, however, in N. Kolyada’s play, time is depicted linearly - this is a movement towards death. The play recreates the chronotope of the idyll, which, according to A. Slyusar, is inherent in Gogol’s story: “The idyll is a genre variety that acts as an artistic analogue of life and, therefore, recreates a certain chronotope. One of its variations can be considered those space-time relations that are reflected in Old world landowners. The heroes of Kolyada, like Gogol’s, are not destined to participate in great events; they are satisfied with their everyday life, their everyday worries, they live in a closed world, in isolation from historical existence. From the outside, their life seems like a meaningless vegetation, but for them it is an ideal, an idyll that can only be disrupted by death. In Kolyada's play the transition is concretized: from life to death. The play is dedicated to the movement towards death, as evidenced by the horizontal existence of the characters “without leaving the bed,” which is already a harbinger of death. Nikolai Kolyada's Old World Landowners is a studio, an analysis of dying and the premonition of approaching death, as well as the husband's feelings of grief and loneliness after the death of his wife. It is this feeling of approaching death that is conveyed from the very beginning of the play, appearing in the dreams of the spouses, in premonitions tragic events against the backdrop of their slow, calm, full of love to each other's lives. In his story, N. Gogol presents a patriarchal picture of life, as evidenced by the portraits on the walls. In Kolyada’s play, patriarchy is also felt, however, introducing the figure of Gogol himself into women's dress, in the very same place in which Pulcheria Ivanovna ordered herself to be buried, the playwright in the world of the idyll exalts (maybe idealizes) feminine, it is closer to nature, it is the beginning of life. Tovstogub Kolyada lives in a world in which there is no longer a desire for stability, harmony, which Gogol dreamed of. One of the main features of Pulcheria Ivanovna is thrift and thrift. Kolyada takes this trait of hers to the point of absurdity, presenting her as a manic gardener, passionate about her work. Nikolai Gogol emphasizes the state of catastrophe, which embodies the feeling of hunger, and to which the author contrasts food - a symbol of life. In Kolyada's play, the landowners' conversations about food resemble the dialogue of those who lived through a time of crisis and shortage. “What if there is hunger? And the pestilence? Will hail destroy the harvest? Will an aphid, a codling moth or a weevil attack? What then? How are we then? Lie down and die” (...) “They all need to be watered with chicken droppings, otherwise we’ll go around the world! And melon aphids don’t like it, and spider mites, and click wireworms, and onion flies, and whiteflies, and naked slugs... All these are our pests, they eat everything like sick people, and we need their droppings, droppings!..." This is allows us to believe that we are dealing with irony over the stereotypes of modern philistine thinking about possible disasters. Characteristic feature works by N.V. Gogol is the almost complete absence of dialogue. Those situations in which the author uses dialogic structures are essentially devoted to one topic - food. Only sometimes Afanasy Ivanovich and Pulcheria Ivanovna talk about something else. Instead of heroes, Gogol says things, material objects, for example: “each door had its own special voice : the door leading to the bedroom sang in the thinnest treble; the door to the dining room wheezed with a bass voice; but the one who was in the hallway made some strange rattling and moaning sound, so that, listening to it, one could finally hear very clearly: “Fathers, I’m cold!” In contrast to this, the very genre of comedy in Kolyada’s play forces the Tovstogubs to conduct a dialogue, however, their ability to do so is repeatedly questioned. Afanasy Ivanovich often responds to his wife’s remarks with shouts: “Afanasy Ivanovich (jumped up, said six times). A? A? A? A? A? A?" (...) “Afanasy Ivanovich (sat down, looks forward, feathers on his head). A?! A?! A?! A?! A?! Huh?!”23 or repeats, regardless of the situation, the same joke: “Nama on the suite is better than a bird, like fried smoked cowbass!”24 His wife excels in this, meaninglessly listing in alphabetical order the names of her remedies for all sorts of diseases: “Pulcheria Ivanovna takes out some shabby brooms and mutters and sings about herbs, right in alphabetical order: Adonis, spring adonis, marsh calamus, marshmallow, chokeberry, black henbane, silver birch, downy birch, sandy immortelle”25. The impossibility of communication between the characters of the play is noted by E.A. Selyutin, who also points out that “Gogol’s heroes do not need to conduct a meaningful dialogue; space does this for them. The characters in Kolyada talk all the time, but their dialogue is subject to the logic of the absurd.”26 In both works we notice a play with language. In his story, Gogol describes Pulcheria Ivanovna’s room according to the principle of gradation: there were chests, boxes, drawers, chests. These definitions are used to convey the feeling of cramped space, which A.A. writes about in more detail. Slyusar. In Kolyada's play the language game is of a different kind and its purpose is different. the playwright introduces many of the author’s neologisms, for example, “kushinkat”, “splashkotet” or, following the same principle as the classic, names the cat: “Kitty.” Manyurochka. "Manyurusenka." This technique conveys the author’s picture of the world, and also with its help creates a parody of the methods of creating Gogol’s picture of the world. Let us pay attention to the fact that Kolyada’s play was staged on stage under the title Old World Love, it is this word that absorbs the entire meaning of the play. Kolyada shifts the emphasis to the relationships between subjects, to the ambiguity of the understanding of love itself, although in the traditional romantic sense love cannot be found here. In Kolyada, love does not save from death; on the contrary, the premonition of approaching death determines people’s actions and deprives their life of joy. Pulcheria Ivanovna undoubtedly accepts her fate, but her husband, like the heroes of Kolyada, thinks about his life, raises questions about death, which here prevails over everything. Moreover, for Kolyada, unlike Gogol, this is not the beautiful cyclical nature of existence, but the tragic meaninglessness of linear existence, vegetation. Playing Kolyada with the work of N.V. Gogol is characterized this way by E.A. Selutina: “In in this case Kolyada chooses the most difficult version of the game with classical text, showing how the meaning invested in the work is original version, is transplanted into a different generic and temporary environment - modern drama, and what semantic variations the classic plot acquires. Thus, (...) transfers the play into the category of a kind of absurd bucolic of our days: the happiness of monotony, the meaninglessness of communication.” So, we are convinced that the playwright’s original intention to write something else has not been realized. Moreover, Kolyada created a play about exactly what he writes about in his other works - about the inferiority of life, loneliness, and the inevitability of death. There is no way for him to escape his “carols.” Nikolai Kolyada does not seek to parody the works of Pushkin and Gogol. On the contrary, he feels a special closeness to them because of universal, timeless values, turning to which he creates his own world, interpreting the themes that the great classics address. At the same time, the goal of Kolyada remakes is not just to beat the classics, but to say something new using its code. As G. Nefagina notes, “remakes, works secondary in Western culture, acquire independent value on Russian soil. (...) Russian adaptations are not even alterations, but new works that inherit socio-philosophical problems in the background of the text, and not just the twists and turns of the plot.”
Nikolai Kolyada does not reinterpret classic themes, plots, characters, and thanks to a well-known understanding of the world that has become stereotypical (such as Gogol’s idyll), he embodies his vision of one or another type of consciousness in the conditions of a new reality. Moreover, he confronts the attitude to life conveyed by the classics with situations from modern life (in the case of plays full of Pushkin allusions) and creates variations on eternal themes(when we are talking about the Old World landowners of N. Gogol), allowing for a three-dimensional representation of the author’s consciousness, in this case, his tragicomic version of love in an idyll. Consequently, the enduring relevance of Pushkin and Gogol’s themes allows the Ural playwright to conduct a dialogue with their heritage, and the remake is perceived only as a form of creating an original work. So, in his plays, Kolyada does not want to recreate the Pushkin and Gogol worlds, but, rethinking the poetics of the classics, creates new ones, original works about “our days”.