The artistic significance of the works of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, the understanding of the scale and meaning of what this bright thinker and artist told us dictates today the need to find new approaches to studying the writer’s work in school.

The texts of A.I. Solzhenitsyn can rightfully be classified as precedent, that is, they have a very strong influence on the formation of a linguistic personality, both individual and collective. The term “precedent text” was introduced into the science of language by Yu.N. Karaulov. He called the texts precedent:

1) “significant for... the individual in cognitive and emotional terms”;

2) having a superpersonal nature, i.e. well known to the wider environment of a given individual, including her predecessors and contemporaries”;

3) texts, “the appeal to which is resumed repeatedly in the discourse of a given linguistic personality.”

The appearance in 1962 of “a certain fiction writer’s manuscript about Stalin’s camps” - the story by A. Ryazansky (pseudonym of A. Solzhenitsyn) “Shch-854”, later called “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” - caused controversial opinions among writers. One of the first enthusiastic responses to the story appears in personal diary K.I. Chukovsky April 13, 1962: “...A wonderful image of camp life under Stalin. I was delighted and wrote a short review of the manuscript...” This short review was called “A Literary Miracle” and was the first review of the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”: “... with this story a very strong, original and mature writer entered literature.” Chukovsky’s words literally coincide with what A.T. Tvardovsky would later write in his preface to the first publication of “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” in Novy Mir (1962, No. 11). Tvardovsky’s preface says the following: “...it /work - T.I., O.B./ signifies the arrival of a new, original and completely mature master in our literature.” As you know, the story shows one day in the life of the main character, time and space are extremely concentrated, and this day becomes a symbol of an entire era in the history of Russia.

The stylistic originality of the story, noted in the first reviews, is expressed, first of all, in the author's skillful use of dialect speech. The entire narrative is based on the direct speech of the protagonist, interrupted by dialogues of the characters and descriptive episodes. The main character is a man from a pre-war village, his origin determines the specificity of speech expression: Ivan Denisovich’s language is richly saturated with dialecticisms, and many words are not so much dialecticisms as colloquial words (“kes”, meaning “how”; the adjective “gunyavyy”, that is, “dirty”, etc.).

Lexical dialectisms in the hero’s speech, despite their isolation from the structure of camp speech, are nevertheless stable and clearly convey the semantics of the designated object or phenomenon and impart an emotional and expressive coloring to the speech. This property of lexical dialectisms is especially clearly revealed against the background of commonly used vocabulary. For example: “once” -(“once”); “across” - (“across”); “prozor” - (“a clearly visible place”); “zast” - (“to close”).

Noteworthy is the fact that argotisms are practically excluded from the hero’s vocabulary, as well as from the main narrative. The exception is individual lexemes (“zek”, “kondey” (punishment cell). Ivan Denisovich practically does not use slang words: he is part of the environment where he is - the main contingent of the camp is not criminals, but political prisoners, the intelligentsia, who do not speak argot and do not strive to to its mastery.In the character's improperly direct speech, jargon is used minimally - no more than 40 “camp” concepts are used.

The stylistic artistic and expressive coloring of the story is also given by the use of word- and formative morphemes in word-formation practice unusual for them: “warmed up” - a verb formed by the prefix “y” has a literary, commonly used synonym “warmed up”, formed by the prefix “so”; “quickly” formed according to the rules of word formation “up”; verbal formations “okunumshi, zashedshi” convey one of the ways of forming gerunds - mshi-, - dshi- preserved in dialect speech. There are many similar formations in the hero’s speech: “ruzmorchivaya” - from the verb “razmorchivat”; “dyer” - “dyer”; “can” - “will be able”; “burnt” - “burnt”; “since childhood” - “since childhood”; “touch” - “touch”, etc.

Thus, Solzhenitsyn, using dialectisms in the story, creates a unique idiolect - an individualized, original speech system, the communicative feature of which is the virtually complete absence of argotisms in the speech of the protagonist. In addition, Solzhenitsyn rather sparingly uses figurative meanings of words in the story, preferring the original imagery and achieving the maximum effect of “naked” speech. Additional expression is given to the text by non-standardly used phraseological units, proverbs and sayings in the hero’s speech. He is able to extremely concisely and accurately define the essence of an event or human character in two or three words. The hero’s speech sounds especially aphoristic at the end of episodes or descriptive fragments.

The artistic, experimental side of A.I. Solzhenitsyn's story is obvious: the original style of the story becomes a source of aesthetic pleasure for the reader.

About originality " small form“Various researchers wrote in the works of A.I. Solzhenitsyn. Y. Orlitsky considered Solzhenitsyn’s experience in the context of “Poems in Prose.” S. Odintsova correlated Solzhenitsyn’s “Tiny Ones” with V. Makanin’s “Quasis.” V. Kuzmin noted that “in “Krokhotki” the concentration of meaning and synaxis is the main means of combating descriptiveness.”

Solzhenitsyn’s own ideas about the stylistic fullness of the “small form” consist in a complete, fundamental rejection of “techniques”: “No literaryism, no techniques!”; “No “new techniques” ... are needed, ... the entire structure of the story is wide open,” Solzhenitsyn wrote approvingly about the lack of formal experiments in the prose of P. Romanov and E. Nosov.

Solzhenitsyn considered the main advantage of stories to be conciseness, visual capacity, and the condensation of each unit of text. Let us present several estimates of this kind. About P. Romanov: “Nothing superfluous and sentiment will not chill anywhere.” About E. Nosov: “Brevity, unobtrusiveness, ease of display.” About Zamyatin “And what instructive conciseness! Many phrases are compressed, nowhere is there an extra verb, but the whole plot is also compressed... How condensed everything is! - the hopelessness of life, the flattenedness of the past and the feelings and phrases themselves - everything here is compressed, compressed.” In “Television Interview on Literary Topics” with Nikita Struve (1976), A.I. Solzhenitsyn, speaking about E. Zamyatin’s style, noted: “Zamiatin is amazing in many respects. Mainly the syntax. If I consider anyone my predecessor, it is Zamyatin.”

The writer's discussions about the style of writers show how important both syntax and phrase construction are for him. A professional analysis of the skill of short story writers helps to understand the style of Solzhenitsyn himself as an artist. Let’s try to do this using the material of “Little Ones,” a special genre that is interesting not only for its distinctly small size, but also for its condensed imagery.

The first cycle of “Little Ones” (1958 - 1960) consists of 17 miniatures, the second (1996 -1997) of 9. It is difficult to identify any pattern in the selection of themes, but it is still possible to group the miniatures according to motives: attitude to life, thirst for life (“Breath”, “Duckling”, “Elm Log”, “Ball”); the natural world (“Reflection in the water”, “Thunderstorm in the mountains”); the confrontation between the human and official worlds (“Lake Segden”, “Ashes of the Poet”, “City on the Neva”, “Traveling along the Oka”); a new, alien attitude (“Way of movement”, “Getting to the day”, “We will not die”); personal impressions associated with shocks of beauty, talent, memories (“City on the Neva”, “In Yesenin’s Homeland”, “Old Bucket”).

In the stories of “Tiny”, conversational syntactic constructions are activated. The author often “folds”, “compresses” syntactic constructions, skillfully using the ellipticality of colloquial speech, when everything that can be omitted without compromising the meaning and understanding of what is being said is omitted. The writer creates sentences in which certain syntactic positions are not replaced (that is, certain members of the sentence are missing) according to the conditions of the context. Ellipsis presupposes the structural incompleteness of the construction, the lack of substitution of the syntactic position: “In the Yesenins’ hut there are wretched partitions not up to the ceiling, closets, cubicles, you can’t even call a room a single one...Behind the spinning wheels there is an ordinary pole” (“In Yesenin’s Homeland”); “It doesn’t weigh at all, its eyes are black like beads, its legs are like a sparrow’s, squeeze it a little and it’s gone. Meanwhile, he’s warm” (“Duckling”); “In that church the machines are shaking. This one is simply locked, silent” (“Traveling along the Oka”) and many others.

Syntactic constructions in “Tiny Ones” become increasingly dismembered and fragmented; formal syntactic connections - weakened, free, and this in turn increases the role of context, within individual syntactic units - the role of word order, accentuation; increasing the role of implicit expressors of communication leads to verbal conciseness of syntactic units and, as a consequence, to their semantic capacity. The general rhythmic and melodic appearance is characterized by expressiveness, expressed in the frequent use of homogeneous members of the sentence, parceled constructions: “And - the magic has disappeared. Immediately - there is no that wondrous carelessness, there is no that lake" (Morning"); “The lake is deserted. Nice lake. Motherland..." (“Lake Segden”). Separation from the main sentence, the intermittent nature of the connection in parceled constructions, the function of an additional statement, which makes it possible to clarify, explain, disseminate, and semantically develop the main message - these are manifestations that enhance the logical and semantic accents, dynamism, and stylistic tension in “Tinies.”

There is also a type of dismemberment when fragmentation in the presentation of messages turns into a kind of literary device - homogeneous syntactic units that precede the main judgment are dissected. These can be subordinate or even isolated phrases: “Only when, through rivers and rivers, we reach a calm, wide mouth, or in a backwater that has stopped, or in a lake where the water does not chill, only there do we see in the mirror-like surface every leaf of a coastal tree, and every feather of a thin cloud, and the poured blue depth of the sky" (“Reflection in Water”); “It is capacious, durable and cheap, this woman’s backpack; its multi-colored sports brothers with pockets and shiny buckles cannot compare with it. He holds so much weight that even through a padded jacket his habitual peasant shoulder cannot bear his belt” (“Collective Farm Backpack”).

Frequently stylistic device The writer also becomes segmented speech structures, for example, when using question, question-and-answer forms: “And what is the soul in here? Doesn’t weigh at all...” (“Duckling”); “...will all this also be completely forgotten? All this will also give such complete eternal beauty?..” (“City on the Neva”); “As much as we see it - coniferous, coniferous, yes. That's the category, then? Oh, no..." ("Larch"). This technique enhances the imitation of communication with the reader, the confidentiality of intonation, as if “thinking on the go.”

Economy, semantic capacity and stylistic expressiveness syntactic constructions are also supported by a graphic element - the use of a dash - a favorite sign in Solzhenitsyn’s narrative system. The breadth of use of this sign indicates its universalization in the writer’s perception. Solzhenitsyn’s dash has several functions:

1. Means all kinds of omissions - omission of connectives in the predicate, omissions of sentence members in incomplete and elliptical sentences, omissions of adversative conjunctions; the dash, as it were, compensates for these missing words, “preserves” their place: “The lake looks into the sky, the sky looks into the lake” (“Lake Segden”); “Heart disease is like an image of our life itself: its course is in complete darkness, and we do not know the day of the end: maybe it’s at the threshold, or maybe not soon” (“Veil”).

2. Conveys the meaning of condition, time, comparison, consequence in those cases when these meanings are not expressed lexically, that is, by conjunctions: “As soon as the veil broke through in your consciousness even a little, they rushed, they rushed at you, flattened with each other” (“Night Thoughts” ").

3. The dash can also be called a sign of “surprise” - semantic, intonation, compositional: “And thanks to insomnia: from this look, even the unsolvable can be solved” (“Night Thoughts”); “It was bequeathed to us with high wisdom by the people of Holy Life” (“Commemoration of the Dead”).

4. The dash also helps convey purely emotional meaning: dynamic speech, sharpness, speed of change of events: “And even on the spire - what a miracle? - the cross survived” (“Bell Tower”); “But something soon certainly shakes up, breaks that sensitive tension: sometimes someone else’s action, a word, sometimes your own petty thought. And - the magic disappeared. Immediately - there is no that wondrous carelessness, there is no that lake” (“Morning”).

The stylistic originality of “Tiny Ones” is characterized by originality and uniqueness of syntax.

Thus, a broad philological look at the works of A.I. Solzhenitsyn is capable of revealing the great master of the Russian word, his unique linguistic heritage, and the individuality of the author’s style.

Solzhenitsyn’s creative method is characterized by a special trust in life; the writer strives to portray everything as it really was. In his opinion, life can express itself, speak about itself, you just need to hear it.

This predetermined the writer’s special interest in the truthful reproduction of life reality, both in works based on personal experience, and, for example, in the epic “The Red Wheel”, which provides a documented accurate depiction of historical events.

The orientation towards truth is already noticeable in the writer’s early works, where he tries to make the most of his personal life experience: in the poem “Dorozhenka” the narration is told directly from the first person (from the author), in the unfinished story “Love the Revolution” the autobiographical character Nerzhin acts. In these works, the writer tries to comprehend the path of life in the context of the post-revolutionary fate of Russia. Similar motives dominate in Solzhenitsyn’s poems, composed in the camp and in exile.

One of Solzhenitsyn’s favorite themes is the theme of male friendship, which is at the center of the novel “In the First Circle.” “Sharashka,” in which Gleb Nerzhin, Lev Rubin and Dmitry Sologdin are forced to work, contrary to the will of the authorities, turned out to be a place where “the spirit of male friendship and philosophy hovered under the sailing vault of the ceiling. Perhaps this was the bliss that all the philosophers of antiquity tried in vain to define and indicate?

The title of this novel is symbolically ambiguous. In addition to the “Dantean” one, there is also a different interpretation of the image of the “first circle”. From the point of view of the hero of the novel, diplomat Innokenty Volodin, there are two circles - one inside the other. The first, small circle is the fatherland; the second, big one is humanity, and on the border between them, according to Volodin, “barbed wire with machine guns... And it turns out that there is no humanity. But only fatherland, fatherland, and different for everyone...” The novel simultaneously contains the question of the boundaries of patriotism and the connection between global and national issues.

But Solzhenitsyn’s stories “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” and “Matrenin’s Dvor” are close ideologically and stylistically, in addition, they also reveal an innovative approach to language that is characteristic of all the writer’s work. “One Day...” does not show the “horrors” of the camp, but the most ordinary day of one prisoner, almost happy. The content of the story is by no means reduced to “exposing” the camp order. The author's attention is given to the uneducated peasant, and it is from his point of view that the world of the camp is depicted.

Here Solzhenitsyn by no means idealizes the folk type, but at the same time shows the kindness, responsiveness, simplicity, humanity of Ivan Denisovich, which resist legalized violence by the very fact that the hero of the story manifests himself as Living being, and not as a nameless “cog” of the totalitarian machine under the number Shch-854 (this is the camp number of Ivan Denisovich Shukhov) and this was also the author’s title of the story.

In his stories, the writer actively uses the skaz form. At the same time, the expressiveness of the speech of the narrator and the characters around them is created in these works not only by vocabulary exoticisms, but also by skillfully used means of general literary vocabulary, layered... on a colloquial syntactic structure.”

In the stories “The Right Hand” (1960), “The Incident at Kochetovka Station”, “For the Good of the Cause”, “Zakhar-Kalita”, “What a Pity” (1965), “Easter procession"(1966) important moral issues are raised, the writer’s interest in the 1000-year history of Russia and Solzhenitsyn’s deep religiosity are palpable.

The writer’s desire to go beyond traditional genres is also indicative. Thus, “The Gulag Archipelago” has the subtitle “An Experience in Artistic Research.” Solzhenitsyn creates new type works bordering between fiction and popular science literature, as well as journalism.

“The Gulag Archipelago” with its documentary accuracy of depicting places of detention is reminiscent of Dostoevsky’s “Notes from the House of the Dead”, as well as books about Sakhalin by A.P. Chekhov and V.M. Doroshevich; However, if earlier hard labor was primarily a punishment for the guilty, then during Solzhenitsyn’s time it was used to punish a huge number of innocent people; it serves the self-affirmation of totalitarian power.

The writer collected and summarized vast historical material that dispels the myth about the humanity of Leninism. The crushing and deeply reasoned criticism of the Soviet system produced the effect of a bomb exploding throughout the world. The reason is that this work is a document of great artistic, emotional and moral power, in which the darkness of the depicted life material is overcome with the help of a kind of catharsis. According to Solzhenitsyn, “The Gulag Archipelago” is a tribute to the memory of those who died in this hell. The writer fulfilled his duty to them, restoring the historical truth about the most terrible pages of Russian history.

Later, in the 90s. Solzhenitsyn returned to the small epic form. In the stories “Young Growth”, “Nastenka”, “Apricot Jam”, “Ego”, “On the Edges”, as in his other works, intellectual depth is combined with an unusually subtle sense of words. All this is evidence of Solzhenitsyn’s mature skill as a writer.

Publicistic creativity of A.I. Solzhenitsyn performs an aesthetic function. His works have been translated into many languages ​​of the world. In the West, there are many film adaptations of his works; Solzhenitsyn’s plays have been repeatedly staged in various theaters around the world. In Russia, in January-February 2006, Russia's first film adaptation of Solzhenitsyn's work was shown - a serial television film based on the novel "In the First Circle", which indicates an undying interest in his work.

Let's consider the lexical originality of Solzhenitsyn's poems.

The writer’s desire to enrich the Russian national language.

Currently, the problem of analyzing the writer’s language has acquired paramount importance, since the study of the idiostyle of a particular author is interesting not only in terms of monitoring the development of the national Russian language, but also for determining the writer’s personal contribution to the process of language development.

Georges Nivat, researcher of A.I. Solzhenitsyn writes: “Solzhenitsyn’s language caused a real shock among the Russian reader. There is already an impressive dictionary volume “ Difficult words Solzhenitsyn." His language became the subject of passionate comments and even venomous attacks."

A.I. Solzhenitsyn meaningfully and purposefully strives to enrich the Russian national language. This is most clearly manifested in the area of ​​vocabulary.

The writer believed that over time “a withering impoverishment of the Russian language has occurred,” and he called today’s written language “overwritten.” Many have been lost folk words, idioms, ways of forming expressively colored words. Wanting to “restore accumulated and then lost wealth,” the writer not only compiled the “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion,” but also used the material from this dictionary in his books.

A.I. Solzhenitsyn uses a wide variety of vocabulary: there are many borrowings from the dictionary of V.I. Dahl, from the works of other Russian writers and the author’s own expressions. The writer uses not only vocabulary that is not contained in any of the dictionaries, but also little-used, forgotten, or even ordinary, but rethought by the writer and carrying new semantics.

In the poem “A Prisoner's Dream” we come across the words: syznachala (at first), without stirring up (without disturbing). Such words are called occasionalisms or original neologisms, consisting of common linguistic units, but in a new combination giving a new bright color to the words.

This is individual word usage and word formation.

Russian linguist, linguistic scientist E.A. Zemskaya argues that occasionalisms, unlike “simply neologisms,” “retain their novelty and freshness regardless of the real time of their creation.”

But the main lexical layer of A.I. Solzhenitsyn are words of general literary speech, because it cannot be otherwise. Thus, in the poem “Evening Snow” there are only a few lexical occasionalisms: snowed (fell asleep), star-shaped (like stars), lowered, sown (fell).

It got dark. Quiet and warm.

And the evening snow falls.

He lay white on the caps of the towers,

The thorn has been cleared away,

And in the dark sparkles of linden.

He brought the path to the entrance

And the lanterns snowed...

My beloved, my sparkling one!

Goes, evening, over the prison,

As I walked above the will before...

The poem contains both metaphors (on the caps of towers, melting into dewdrops) and personification (gray linden branches).

"A.S. Solzhenitsyn is an artist with a keen sense of linguistic potential. The writer discovers the true art of finding the resources of the national language to express the author’s individuality in the vision of the world,” wrote G.O. Distiller.

Motherland...Russia...It means quite a lot in the life of any of us. It’s hard to imagine a person who doesn’t love his homeland. A few months before Solzhenitsyn’s birth, in May 1918, A.A. Blok answered the question in the questionnaire: what should a Russian citizen do now? Blok responded as a poet and thinker: “An artist should know that the Russia that was does not exist and will never exist again. The world has entered new era. That civilization, that statehood, that religion - died...lost being.”

L.I. Saraskina, famous writer, states: “Without exaggeration, we can say that all of Solzhenitsyn’s work is passionately aimed at understanding the difference between this and that civilization, this and that statehood, this and that religion.”

When writer A.I. Solzhenitsyn was asked the question: “What do you think of today’s Russia? How far is it from the one with which you fought, and how close can it be to the one that you dreamed of?”, he answered this way: “A very interesting question: how close is it to the Russia that I dreamed of... Very, very far away. And by state structure, both in terms of social and economic conditions, is very far from what I dreamed of. The main thing in international relations has been achieved - Russia's influence and Russia's place in the world have been restored. But on the internal plane, our moral state is far from what we would like, how we organically need. This is a very complex spiritual process."

From the rostrum of the State Duma his call was made to save the people as the most pressing problem modern Russia.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn the poet in his poem “Russia?” strives to philosophically comprehend the dramatic fate of Russia in the context of historical names and connections, passing the past through his own feelings, through his soul:

“Russia!”... Not in Blok’s faces

You appear to me, I see:

Among the wild tribesmen

I don’t find Russia...

So what kind of Russia does the writer dream of? Why does he see so few “genuine Russians” around him? Where

Russia of straightforward people,

Hot funny weirdos

Russia of welcoming thresholds,

Russia of wide tables,

Where, let it be not good for bad,

But they pay good for good,

Where are the timid, pliable, quiet

Doesn't the human soul trample?

Let us again pay attention to the unusual vocabulary of the poem:

like we cream with flints (pronounce firmly, often);

both the collar and the chest are wide open;

what kind of fellow-countrymen I met;

human yuro (herd, swarm, flock);

power hand (palm, hand); (this is an Old Slavonic word).

feathered and warm playing the fluttering word.

The words created by the writer realize Solzhenitsyn’s creative potential and create his individual style. The writer uses both lexical and semantic occasionalisms.

Lexical occasionalisms are words of mostly one-time use, although they can be used in other works of the author: inotsvetno, overgrown bushes, alyan curls, tiny ice.

Semantic occasionalisms are lexemes that previously existed in literary language, but gained novelty due to the author’s individual meanings: colorful... and warm, playing the fluttering word, an angerless son, an unsuccessful Russian land.

Contemporary writer Sergei Shargunov writes: “...I love Solzhenitsyn not for his historical magnitude, but for artistic features. I didn’t immediately fall in love with him and, of course, I don’t accept him in everything. However, I really like the way he wrote. Apart from any ideas, it is stylistically that it is both subtle and light. Lamentable weaving and furious shouting of words. He was very, very alive!”

In the poem "Russia?" 13 sentences containing rhetorical questions. The function of a rhetorical question is to attract the reader’s attention, enhance the impression, and increase the emotional tone.

Behind the external severity and “furious shouting of words” we see a caring person, whose soul and heart aches for his country:

Where, if they don’t believe in God,

So why don't they make fun of him?

Where, when entering a house, from the threshold

Do they honor someone else's ritual?

In an area of ​​two hundred million

Oh, how fragile and thin you are,

The only Russia

Inaudible for now!..

“In the darkest years, Solzhenitsyn believed in the transformation of Russia, because he saw (and allowed us to see) the faces of Russian people who retained a high spiritual structure, warmth of heart, unostentatious courage, the ability to believe, love, give oneself to another, cherish honor and remain faithful to duty "- wrote literary historian Andrei Nemzer.

After reading the poems of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, we can say with confidence that they represent material that reveals the hidden capabilities of the Russian national language. The main direction is to enrich the vocabulary through such groups as the author's occasional vocabulary and colloquial vocabulary.

Occasionalisms created by the author as a means of expressiveness of speech, as a means of creating a certain image, have been actively used for more than four centuries. As a means of expressiveness in artistic, and especially in poetic speech, occasionalism allows the author not only to create a unique image, but the reader, in turn, gets the opportunity to see and mentally create his own personal subjective image. This means that we can talk about co-creation between the artist and the reader.

The writer’s linguistic work aimed at returning lost linguistic wealth is a continuation of the work of the classics of Russian literature: A.S. Pushkina, L.N. Tolstoy, N.S. Leskova.

Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) - Russian writer, publicist, poet, public and political figure who lived and worked in the USSR, Switzerland, USA and Russia. Laureate Nobel Prize in literature (1970). A dissident who for several decades (1960s - 1980s) actively opposed communist ideas, the political system of the USSR and the policies of its authorities. In addition to artistic literary works, which, as a rule, touch upon pressing socio-political issues, he became widely known for his historical and journalistic works on history. Russia XIX--XX centuries.

With the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, Solzhenitsyn was not immediately mobilized, since he was considered “limitedly fit” for health reasons. He actively sought a call to the front. In September 1941, together with his wife, he was assigned as a school teacher in Morozovsk, Rostov region, but on October 18 he was drafted and sent to a horse-drawn cargo train as a private. In the active army since February 1943; served as commander of the sound reconnaissance battery of the 794th Separate Army Reconnaissance Artillery Battalion.

At the front, Solzhenitsyn continued to be interested in public life, but became critical of Stalin (for “distorting Leninism”); in correspondence with an old friend (Nikolai Vitkevich), he spoke abusively about “Godfather,” by whom Stalin was guessed, kept in his personal belongings a “resolution” drawn up together with Vitkevich, in which he compared the Stalinist order with serfdom and spoke about the creation of an “organization” after the war to restore the so-called “Leninist” norms. 7 years in camps. Then the link. Rehabilitated in 56-57.

By March 1963, Solzhenitsyn had lost favor with Khrushchev (non-award Lenin Prize, refusal to publish the novel “In the First Circle”). After Brezhnev came to power, Solzhenitsyn practically lost the opportunity to legally publish and speak. In September 1965, the KGB confiscated Solzhenitsyn's archive with his most anti-Soviet works, which worsened the writer's situation. Taking advantage of a certain inaction of the authorities, in 1966 Solzhenitsyn began active social activities. Dissident. The Soviet press began a propaganda campaign against the author.

On August 23, 1973, he gave a long interview to foreign correspondents. On the same day, the KGB detained one of the writer’s assistants, Elizaveta Voronyanskaya. During the interrogation, she revealed the location of one copy of the manuscript of “The Gulag Archipelago” and, returning home, hanged herself. On September 5, Solzhenitsyn learned about what had happened and ordered the printing of “Archipelago” to begin in the West (in the emigrant publishing house YMCA-Press). At the same time, he sent the leadership of the USSR a “Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union,” in which he called for abandoning communist ideology and taking steps to transform the USSR into a Russian national state. Since the end of August, it has been published in the Western press a large number of articles in defense of dissidents and, in particular, Solzhenitsyn.

The USSR launched a powerful propaganda campaign against dissidents. On August 31, the Pravda newspaper published an open letter from a group of Soviet writers condemning Solzhenitsyn and A.D. Sakharov, “slandering our state and social system.” On September 24, the KGB, through Solzhenitsyn’s ex-wife, offered the writer the official publication of the story “Cancer Ward” in the USSR in exchange for refusing to publish “The Gulag Archipelago” abroad. However, Solzhenitsyn, having said that he did not object to the printing of “ Cancer building"in the USSR, did not express any desire to bind himself to an unspoken agreement with the authorities. In late December 1973, the publication of the first volume of The Gulag Archipelago was announced. A massive campaign of denigration of Solzhenitsyn as a traitor to the motherland with the label of “literary Vlasovite” began in the Soviet media. The emphasis was not on the actual content of “The Gulag Archipelago” (an artistic study of the Soviet camp-prison system of 1918-1956), which was not discussed at all, but on Solzhenitsyn’s alleged solidarity with “traitors to the motherland during the war, policemen and Vlasovites.”

In the USSR, during the years of stagnation, “August the Fourteenth” and “The Gulag Archipelago” (like the first novels) were distributed in samizdat.

On February 12, Solzhenitsyn was arrested, accused of treason and deprived of Soviet citizenship. On February 13, he was expelled from the USSR (delivered to Germany by plane). On March 29, the Solzhenitsyn family left the USSR.

In the 90s, Solzhenitsyn's Soviet citizenship was completely restored.

Mental pain for Russia, and for all five continents of the Earth, is the main thing in the journalistic works of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, who, since 1992, have not left the pages of magazines “ New world", "Dialogue", "Zvezda", "New Time", "Moscow", newspapers "Komsomolskaya Pravda", "Literary Gazette" and other publications. “Our five continents are in a tornado,” he worries. - But it is in such tests that the highest abilities of human souls are revealed. If we die and lose this world, it will be our own fault."

Publication “FROM THE ARTICLE “RUSSIAN QUESTION” TO THE END OF THE XX CENTURY” (1994, in “New World”): about the “Great Russian catastrophe of the 90s” - about the collapse of society (both moral and actual-financial), about impoverishment Russian language, the “Russian question” by the end of the 20th century stands very unambiguously: to be our people or not to be?” “We are obliged to come out of the current humiliated lost state - if not for ourselves, then in memory of our ancestors, and for the sake of our children and grandchildren.” Solzhenitsyn sees a way out in the strong-willed step of the Russian people. The Russian question, in his opinion, is “saving the people.” And this is the most important thing.

Genre diversity of journalism by A.I. Solzhenitsyn 1970-1980s

Introduction

The creative path of the outstanding Russian writer and publicist A.I. Solzhenitsyn is inextricably linked with the history of Russia in the 20th century. In the years when A.I. Solzhenitsyn turned to active artistic creativity; this required remarkable moral strength, since he had to go against the grain. Real life in the art of that time was replaced by ideological mythologies. HELL. Sakharov named A.I. Solzhenitsyn "a giant in the struggle for human dignity in modern times" tragic world" Witness and participant in Russian history of the twentieth century A.I. Solzhenitsyn was there himself. He graduated from the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Rostov University and entered adulthood on June 22, 1941. Having received his diploma, he comes to take exams at the Moscow Institute of History, Philosophy, Literature (MIFLI), where he has studied correspondence courses since 1939. The next session is at the beginning of the war. In October he was mobilized into the army, and soon entered the officer school in Kostroma. In the summer of 1942 he received the rank of lieutenant, and at the end he went to the front: A.I. Solzhenitsyn commands a sound battery in artillery reconnaissance. Military experience of A.I. Solzhenitsyn and the work of his sound battery are reflected in his military prose of the late 90s. (two-part story “Zhelyabug settlements” and story “Adlig Schvenkitten” - “New World”. 1999. No. 3). As an artillery officer, he travels from Orel to East Prussia and is awarded orders. Miraculously, he finds himself in the very places of East Prussia where the army of General Samsonov passed. The tragic episode of 1914 - the Samson disaster - becomes the subject of depiction in the first “Knot” of the “Red Wheel” - in “August the Fourteenth”. February 9, 1945 Captain A.I. Solzhenitsyn is arrested at the command post of his superior, General Travkin, who, a year after the arrest, will give his former officer a reference, where he will remember, without fear, all his merits - including the night withdrawal from the encirclement of the battery in January 1945, when the battles were in progress already in Prussia. After the arrest - camps: in New Jerusalem, in Moscow at the Kaluga outpost, in special prison No. 16 in the northern suburbs of Moscow (the same famous Marfinsk sharashka described in the novel “In the First Circle”, 1955-1968). Since 1949 - camp in Ekibastuz (Kazakhstan). Since 1953 A.I. Solzhenitsyn is an “eternal exiled settler” in a remote village in the Dzhambul region, on the edge of the desert. In 1957 - rehabilitation and a rural school in the village of Torfo-product near Ryazan, where he teaches and rents a room from Matryona Zakharova, who became the prototype of the famous hostess of “Matryona’s Yard” (1959). In 1959 A.I. Solzhenitsyn “in one gulp”, in three weeks, creates the story “Shch-854”, which, after much trouble, A.T. Tvardovsky and with the blessing of N.S. himself. Khrushchev was published in “New World” (1962 No. 11) under the title “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.”

Already by the time of the first publication of A.I. Solzhenitsyn has serious writing experience behind him - about a decade and a half: “For twelve years I calmly wrote and wrote. Only on the thirteenth did he falter. It was the summer of 1960. From writing many things - both with their complete hopelessness and complete obscurity - I began to feel overwhelmed, I lost the lightness of concept and movement. I began to run out of air in the literary underground,” wrote A.I. Solzhenitsyn in his autobiographical book “The Calf Butted an Oak Tree.” It was in the literary underground that the novels “In the First Circle,” several plays, and the film script “Tanks Know the Truth!” were created. Work began on “The Gulag Archipelago”, a novel about the Russian revolution codenamed “R-17” was comprehended, which was embodied decades later in the epic “The Red Wheel”. In the mid-60s. The story “Cancer Ward” (1963-1967) and the novel “In the First Circle” were created. It was not possible to publish them in Novy Mir, and both were published in 1968 in the West. At the same time, work began earlier on “The Gulag Archipelago” (1958-1968; 1979) and the epic “Red Wheel” (intensive work on the large historical novel “R-17”, which grew into the epic “Red Wheel”, began in 1969). In 1979 A.I. Solzhenitsyn becomes a Nobel Prize laureate. The story of receiving the Nobel Prize is described in the chapter “Nobeliana” (“A calf butted an oak tree”). At the same time, his position in the USSR is increasingly deteriorating: his principled and uncompromising ideological and literary position leads to exclusion from the Writers' Union (November 1969); a campaign of persecution against A.I. is unfolding in the Soviet press. Solzhenitsyn. This forces him to give permission for the publication in Paris of the book “August the Fourteenth” (1971) - the first volume of the epic “The Red Wheel”. In 1973, the first volume of The Gulag Archipelago was published by the Paris publishing house YMCA-PRESS.

Ideological opposition is not only not hidden by A.I. Solzhenitsyn, but also directly declared. He writes a number of open letters: Letter to the Fourth All-Union Congress of the Union of Soviet Writers (1967), Open letter to the Secretariat of the RSFSG Writers Union (1969), Letter to the leaders of the Soviet Union (1973), which is sent by mail to the addressees of the CPSU Central Committee , and having not received a response, distributes it in samizdat. The writer creates a series of journalistic articles that are intended for the philosophical and journalistic collection “From Under the Blocks” (“On the return of breath and consciousness” (1973), “Repentance and self-restraint as categories of national life” (1973), “Education "(1974)), "Don't live by a lie!" (1974).

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

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

Object of this study are the journalistic speeches of A.I. Solzhenitsyn on socio-political topics (articles, speeches, open letters, interviews), which had a significant impact on the social consciousness of the readership.

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

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

This goal determines the range of tasks:

1) Characterize the journalistic speeches of A.I. Solzhenitsyn 1960-1970s.

2) Reveal the uniqueness of the “open letter” genre as a form of expression of the writer’s ideological and aesthetic position.

3) Determine the features of the depiction of the theme of Russian emigration in the essays of A.I. Solzhenitsyn “A grain fell between two millstones.”

4) Consider the problems and structural principles of the “lecture” and “speech” genre in the works of A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

5) Analyze the article “How can we develop Russia?” from the point of view of issues and ways of expressing the author’s position.

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

The research materials can be used in studying the history of domestic journalism of the 20th century, which determines practical significance of the thesis.

Main provisions submitted for defense:

Journalism occupies an important place in the work of A.I. Solzhenitsyn. It poses and resolves moral, socio-political, historical, and philosophical questions in accordance with the writer’s beliefs. The defining idea of ​​all journalism by A.I. Solzhenitsyn’s idea was to abandon the totalitarian system of government and gradually transition to democratic principles. It was journalism that made it possible for A.I. Solzhenitsyn to express his ideas for transforming our state.

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

As the hope of awakening patriotism and conscience in the “leaders” is lost, the desire to encourage compatriots to a moral revolution, the essence of which is the refusal to support and share the official lie, grows. Summoning A.I. Solzhenitsyn’s “Live not by a lie” was heard in a number of journalistic speeches by the writer and took on a completed and refined form in the appeal “Live not by a lie.” One of the main theses of A.I. Solzhenitsyn's thesis about the fusion of violence with lies. A.I. Solzhenitsyn has a keen sense of the need for freedom and truth; the key to liberation is “personal non-participation in lies!” The main pathos of the appeal: “Let lies cover everything, let lies rule everything, but let us insist on the smallest things: let them rule not through me!”

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

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

Expression ideas by A.I. Solzhenitsyn in his “Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union” and the appeal “Do not live by lies” are repeated in other journalistic speeches of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, taking shape in the strictly verified, hard-won program of A.I. Solzhenitsyn the writer, publicist and citizen. It is based on the concept of a peaceful path of development for Russia, ways to soften the authoritarian system of power. The article “How can we develop Russia?” - these are reflections on the fate of the country, its future.

Structure of the thesis determined by the purpose and objectives of the study. The work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion and a list of references.

1. Journalism by A.I. Solzhenitsyn 1960-70s

1.1 The genre of “open letter” as a form of expression of ideological and literary position A.I. Solzhenitsyn

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

However, journalism did not just become an important component of his continuous preaching and confession, a laboratory for the development of his concepts and working hypotheses. He continuously moves in the sphere of journalistic extra-imaginative “feasible considerations.” A.I. For Solzhenitsyn, it is important to first “shout out” some truth loudly, catch the echo, and only then pronounce it, with amendments, “in a low voice.” In any case, journalism for him is not at all “waste” from the huge shipyard where his “ships” have been built for years and decades. Perhaps even the projects of these “ships-novels” arose from the theses and working hypotheses of his journalism.

Two volumes of the writer's journalism are in the famous collected works of the Parisian publishing house N.A. Struve - are divided based on chronology into two parts: “In the Soviet Union” (1969-1974) and “In the West” (1974-1980). This is a very multidimensional, multidimensional, but internally unified understanding of the changing world, a whole series of positions, even portraits of the writer at the height of the Cold War. This journalism caused many aggressive attacks and irony directed at him, which now and then “overwhelmed” his prose. If, say, the position of A.D. Sakharov or V.S. Grossman’s “arrested” novel “Life and Fate” was accepted unconditionally by one side - the liberal opposition, then the journalism of A.I. Solzhenitsyn often took away his friends in the liberal camp.

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

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

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

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

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

An open letter is specific genre public speeches in the press, which became widespread in the 20th century. The purpose of any open letter, including the one being analyzed, is the opportunity to influence certain social processes or publicly significant situations, in the opinion of the author, that concern him.

In “Letter to the IV All-Union Congress of the Union of Soviet Writers” (1967) A.I. Solzhenitsyn wants to “convince” the decision makers to whom it is addressed, to indirectly influence their decision by forming the appropriate public opinion. Compositionally, the text consists of two parts. In the first part, A.I. Solzhenitsyn speaks about the general state of affairs in literature. The second part is devoted to the work of the writer himself. In the first part, “Letters” touches on several significant topics. Firstly, censorship: “...that oppression that is no longer tolerated, to which our fiction has been subjected to censorship from decade to decade and with which the Writers' Union cannot tolerate in the future. Not provided for by the constitution and therefore illegal, not publicly named anywhere, censorship under the obscured name of Glavlit weighs heavily on our fiction and exercises the tyranny of literary illiterate people over writers. A relic of the Middle Ages, censorship is dragging its Methuselah deadlines almost into the 21st century! Perishable, it strives to appropriate for itself the lot of imperishable time: to select worthy books from unworthy ones.”

A.I. Solzhenitsyn expresses his deep regret that “... works that could express the urgent national thought, have a timely and healing influence in the spiritual field or on the development public consciousness, - are prohibited or mutilated by censorship for petty, selfish, and short-sighted reasons for the life of the people. Excellent manuscripts by young authors, names not yet known to anyone, are now rejected by editors simply because they “won’t pass.” Many members of the Union and even delegates of this Congress know how they themselves could not resist censorship pressure and conceded in the structure and concept of their books, replaced chapters, pages, paragraphs, phrases in them, provided them with faded titles, just to see them in print, and thereby irreparably distorted their content and their creative method. According to the understandable nature of literature, all these distortions are destructive for talented works and completely insensitive to the untalented. It is precisely the best part of our literature that appears in a distorted form. Our writers are not expected or recognized to have the right to express forward-looking judgments about the moral life of man and society, to explain in their own way social problems or historical experience, so deeply suffered in our country.” In this step, A.I. Solzhenitsyn was not alone. One hundred members of the SSP testified their agreement with him with their signatures on the letter they read in the congress hall. Other no less important topic- repressions against writers: “Even Dostoevsky, the pride of world literature, was not published in our country at one time (not fully printed even now), excluded from school curricula, made unreadable, vilified. How many years was Yesenin considered “counter-revolutionary” (and they even gave money for his books? prison sentences)? Wasn’t Mayakovsky also an “anarchist political hooligan”? For decades, Akhmatova’s timeless poems were considered “anti-Soviet.” The first timid publication of the dazzling Tsvetaeva ten years ago was declared a “gross political mistake.” Only with a delay of 20 and 30 years were Bunin, Bulgakov, Platonov returned to us; Mandelstam, Voloshin, Gumilyov, Klyuev inevitably stand in line; it is impossible to avoid one day “recognizing” both Zamyatin and Remizov. There is a resolving moment here - the death of an objectionable writer, after which, soon or not, he is returned to us, accompanied by an “explanation of errors.” It’s been a long time since Pasternak’s name could have been uttered out loud, but now he’s died—and his books are published, and his poems are quoted even at ceremonies.”

Does not ignore A.I. Solzhenitsyn and the treacherous behavior of the leaders of the writers' union: “... the leadership of the Union cowardly abandoned in trouble those whose persecution ended in exile, camp and death (Pavel Vasiliev, Mandelstam, Artyom Vesely, Pilnyak, Babel, Tabidze, Zabolotsky and others). We are forced to end this list with the words “and others”: we learned after the 20th Party Congress that there were more than six hundred of them - innocent writers whom the Union obediently handed over to a prison camp fate. However, this scroll is even longer, its twisted end is not readable and will never be read by our eyes: it contains the names of such young prose writers and poets, whom we could only recognize by chance from personal meetings, whose talents died in the camps without flowering, whose works were not published further than the state security offices of the times of Yagoda-Yezhov-Beria-Abakumov.”

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

In the first part of A.I.’s speech. Solzhenitsyn provides convincing examples pointing to the failure of the current system of government. In the second part of the letter from A.I. Solzhenitsyn talks about the prohibitions and persecutions he personally experienced. This part is divided into more specific aspects concerning individual episodes of the writer’s work (about the taken away novel “In the First Circle” and the archive, about slander towards the writer and the impossibility of responding to it, about works inaccessible to the general reader, about the ban on communication with readers) and ends with a not very comforting conclusion: “So my work is completely drowned out, closed and slandered.” At the end of the letter to A.I. Solzhenitsyn asks the question: “With such a gross violation of my copyright and “other” rights, will the IV All-Union Congress undertake or not undertake to protect me?” most likely left unanswered, but in this question one can hear: how much can one endure? How long can you remain idle? In conclusion, A.I. Solzhenitsyn says that “No one can block the paths of truth, and I am ready to accept death for its movement.” The letter ends with a question in which the author of the letter expresses the hope that the experience of the previous generation “...will teach us finally not to stop the writer’s pen during his lifetime?” In this letter A.I. Solzhenitsyn appears as a fighter, an exposer, who knows no doubts and instructs his fellow citizens with his word, which has become a public matter.

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

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

On May 3, 1974, A.I. Solzhenitsyn speaks about the “Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union” in “Responses to Time Magazine”: “I do not insist on the uniqueness of the solution I propose and am even ready to immediately withdraw my proposals if I am confronted with more than just criticism (even when I wrote, I understood the weak place of this “Letter”), but will offer a better, real, constructive way out. My proposals were put forward last year with very, very little hope, yes. But it was impossible not to try this advice. At one time, Sakharov, Grigorenko, and others, with different justifications, proposed peaceful ways for the development of our country to the Soviet government. This was always done not without hope - alas, it was never justified. Perhaps we can summarize: consistently and decisively rejecting all benevolent proposals, all reforms, all peaceful paths, the Soviet leaders will not be able to plead that they did not know the situation, that they were not offered alternatives: with their stubborn inertia they took upon themselves responsibility for the most difficult development options for our country."

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

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

Re-reading the journalism of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, you are surprised at her consistency. From the “Letter to the Fourth Writers' Congress” (1967) to the “Harvard Speech” (1978), the same themes are revealed, but they are revealed slowly, little by little, and everything in them is subordinated to a moral criterion. Hence the subordination of democracy to the moral goals of life, felt already in the “Letter to the Leaders of the Soviet Union” (1973) and thundering deafeningly at Harvard in 1978; hence the primacy of the nation over ideology - a line begun in the collection “From Under the Blocks” and ending with a sharp condemnation of Russian liberals in February 1917 (in an interview from February 1979); and the denial of the moral right to emigrate for those who consider themselves Russian, appearing for the first time in a CBS television interview (June 1974), clarified in an open letter to Pavel Litvinov (January 1975) and, finally, resulting in a furious accusatory speech (“BBC Radio Interview”, February 1979); and the regret that the West entered into an alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler, expressed in New York in July 1975 and explained in no uncertain terms in May 1978. A.I. Solzhenitsyn takes the floor only by his own decision and never in response to calls from the media. In the journalism of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, in his open letters and messages, the reader is confronted with the image of a man who has straightened himself out in the fight against the Soviet system and is unable to compromise with it.

journalistic genre article Solzhenitsyn

In many of his journalistic speeches A.I. Solzhenitsyn seeks to comprehend the “categories of national life.” The articles are devoted to these aspects: “It is not the custom to whiten cabbage soup with tar, that’s why sour cream” (1965), “On the return of breathing and consciousness” (1973), “Repentance and self-restraint” (1973), “Education” ( 1974), appeal “Do not live by lies” (1974), “Our pluralists” (1982), “Your tripod will shake” (1984). Summoning A.I. Solzhenitsyn’s “Live not by a lie” was heard in a number of journalistic speeches by the writer and took on a completed and refined form in the appeal “Live not by a lie.” One of the main theses of this speech by A.I. Solzhenitsyn's thesis about the fusion of violence with lies. A.I. Solzhenitsyn has a keen sense of the need for freedom and truth; the key to liberation is “personal non-participation in lies!” The main pathos of the appeal: “Let lies cover everything, let lies rule everything, but let us insist on the smallest things: let them rule not through me!”

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

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

In his speech in Taiwan on October 23, 1982, A.I. Solzhenitsyn said: “The present world is dominated by the betrayal of weakness, and you can truly count only on your own strength. However, there is one more - great and great hope: for the peoples of the enslaved countries, who will not endure indefinitely, but will come out menacingly at an hour threatening for their communist rulers." What do these words mean, if not the anticipation and expectation of a revolution in the "enslaved countries" ? How else can one “stand out menacingly” against their peoples? What could be a “terrible hour” for the “communist rulers” in this context, if not a revolution?

Totalitarianism of a mature, established type is terrible in its futility in the sense of a relatively prosperous and quick liberation from it. We have never seen such liberation without outside intervention as in West Germany or Grenada. Categorical refusal of D. Sakharov, A.I. Solzhenitsyn and most other very worthy oppositionists from the idea of ​​forceful resistance within the country is, in essence, most likely a statement, including an emotional, instinctive one, of the unreality of such resistance. This is also a powerful reaction to the criminality of Russian revolutionary and subsequent communist violence, characteristic, with few exceptions, of almost all sub-Soviet opposition to totalitarianism. This is also a natural fear of what self-destructive forms an incredible or almost incredible outbreak of national and social (in non-Russian regions) or purely social (in Russia) physical resistance to the regime from below could take. Resolutely refusing violence, A.I. Solzhenitsyn offers his own way out - revolutionary, but not violent.

The appeal “Do not live by lies” actually repeats the constructive part of “Obrazovanschina”, but clearer, sharper, more definite, with an extremely high concentration of leading ideas. One of the main theses of A.I. Solzhenitsyn’s thesis about the fusion of violence with lies: “When violence bursts into peaceful human life, its face glows with self-confidence, it carries the flag and shouts: “I am Violence!” Disperse, make way - I’ll crush you!” But violence quickly ages, in a few years - it is no longer self-confident, and in order to hold on, to look decent, it certainly calls on Lies as its allies. For: violence has nothing to hide behind except lies, and lies can only be maintained by violence. And not every day, not every shoulder, violence lays its heavy paw: it demands from us only submission to lies, daily participation in lies - and this is all loyalty. And here lies the neglected by us, the simplest, most accessible key to our liberation: personal non-participation in lies! Let the lie cover everything, let the lie control everything, but let us insist on the smallest things: let it rule not through me!”

Beyond the scope of the appeal, the question remained: what is considered truth? Even among honest, moral people, their specific understanding of the truth often varies greatly. In addition, there is always a loophole for the hypocrite - he writes, sings, draws, sculpts, votes and quotes according to the call of his heart (“we write as our heart dictates, and our heart belongs to the party”). Another series remained outside the scope of the appeal difficult questions- Do citizens of the free world live in truth? Do political freedoms ensure the freedom to live without lies? Outside the scope of the appeal were specific examples (who are no longer living by lies) and “instructions for use” - how to live not by lies in privacy(is it always possible?) and in those cases when a lie spares the weak, the sick? And in general: where are the boundaries of the principle? How to behave with an enemy, rival, competitor? Only at first glance is the imperative of A.I. Solzhenitsyn might seem like an easy and quick task, a simple and understandable recipe. The thought that, at the call of A.I. Solzhenitsyn had to be allowed to every Russian maximalist, demanded a complete revision of being and consciousness.

“For many decades, not a single question, not a single major event our lives were not discussed freely and comprehensively, so that we could make a true assessment of what happened and the ways out of it. But everything was suppressed at the very beginning, everything was left behind as thoughtless, chaotic rubbish, without caring about the past, and therefore about the future. And there new and new events fell, crushing with the same oppressive blocks. And now, coming up from the outside, it’s even difficult to find the strength to sort through all this layering.” It is this image of suppressed thoughts, suppressed for half a century (even more), that gave the name to the collection “From Under the Blocks.” Thoughts by A.I. Solzhenitsyn is trying to break through these blocks upward - to the light and to communication. For those who have not experienced such a fiftieth anniversary, it is even difficult to imagine how the thoughts of compatriots are scattered under constant suppression. Compatriots seem to cease to understand each other, as if they do not speak the same language. As painful as the process was for society to lose speech when speech was prohibited, it is no less painful for society to return to speech. After such a break, it is not surprising that among dissidents, in fact, among those people in Russia who expressed their thoughts, such sharp differences of opinion arose. They were unaccustomed to hearing each other and completely unaccustomed to having discussions.

The first thing I would like to note is that throughout the world and in our country this general tone has been adopted: expose others - others politicians, other parties, other movements, other nations and this is a pamphlet direction. A.I. Solzhenitsyn calls on everyone in general, in all aspects of life, to begin by admitting their own mistakes and injustices. A.I. Solzhenitsyn already had to write in “The Gulag Archipelago” and in other works that the line of good and evil does not run so primitively, that on one side are those who are right, and on the other – those who are wrong. The line of good and evil in the world does not divide parties into those who are right or wrong, and it does not even divide people that way. The line between good and evil runs through the heart of every person. At different times, under different circumstances, a person, a certain group of people, an entire social movement, and an entire nation occupied a brighter position. high position, then, on the contrary, descended into darkness.

A.I. Solzhenitsyn poses the question in his article “Repentance and Self-restraint” (1973): is it possible to talk about the repentance of nations, is this feeling possible? individual person transfer to the nation? Is it possible to talk about a sin that an entire nation has committed? Of course, it never happens that all the members of a given nation have committed some crime, or misdemeanor, or sin. But on the other hand, in a sense, in the memory of history, in human memory and in national memory, this is exactly how it is imprinted. A.I. Solzhenitsyn said (thought) that in the memory of former colonial peoples there remained a general impression that their former colonizers were guilty before them - entirely, as nations, although not everyone was a colonizer. One could observe in one part of Germany a wave of repentance for the events of World War II. This is a completely real national feeling, it was, and even is. They will ask: under totalitarian regimes, is it the people’s fault for what their rulers do? It seems to be least guilty in totalitarian regimes. And, nevertheless, what are totalitarian regimes based on, if not on the support of some and the passivity of others?

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

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

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

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

2.1 Problems of Russian emigration in the essays of A.I. Solzhenitsyn “A grain fell between two millstones”

In the early 1970s. a new exodus of our compatriots abroad began, called the Third Wave of Emigration (sometimes called dissident). In fact, she was not so much national (i.e. Jewish) as class (i.e. intellectual), and expressed her self-awareness with the words “I chose freedom.” The third wave of emigration can be roughly divided into two groups: a) those leaving for their historical homeland, mainly to Israel, Germany and Greece; b) dissidents who voluntarily or forcedly left their homeland.

Writers of the third wave found themselves in emigration in completely new conditions; in many ways they were not accepted by their predecessors and were alien to the “old emigration.” Unlike emigrants of the first and second waves, they did not set themselves the task of “preserving culture” or capturing the hardships experienced in their homeland. Completely different experiences, worldviews, even different languages ​​(as A.I. Solzhenitsyn published the Dictionary of Language Expansion, which included dialects and camp jargon) prevented the emergence of connections between generations. The Russian language has undergone significant changes over the 50 years of Soviet power; the work of representatives of the third wave was formed not so much under the influence of Russian classics, but under the influence of American and Latin American literature, as well as poetry by M. Tsvetaeva, B. Pasternak, prose by A. Platonov. One of the main features of Russian emigrant literature of the third wave will be its attraction to the avant-garde and postmodernism. At the same time, the third wave was quite heterogeneous: writers emigrated realistic direction(A. Solzhenitsyn, G. Vladimov), postmodernists (S. Sokolov, Y. Mamleev, E. Limonov), Nobel laureate I. Brodsky, anti-formalist N. Korzhavin. Russian literature of the third wave in emigration, according to Naum Korzhavin, is a “tangle of conflicts”: “We left in order to be able to fight with each other.” Undoubtedly Russian literary emigration preserved the traditional humanistic pathos of Russian literature. This was especially important in the twentieth century, following the great literary insights and achievements of the nineteenth century. The emigrants were able to oppose state monopoly to literature the only possible alternative is aesthetic. True literary criticism was preserved only in emigration. It was in emigration that such genres unacceptable for the metropolis as dystopia, pamphlet and essay were able to survive.

It is important that issues of the spiritual development of the country (Russia, the USSR) were openly discussed on the pages of emigrant magazines, as soon as emigration itself appeared. Here the atmosphere of open discussions was revived, which in the metropolis was skillfully replaced by pseudo-openness (in fact, everyday limitations, in which the height of imagination is the column “If I were the director ...”) of the Literary Newspaper. Various points vision is a normal thing for the literary process, but Russian emigrants also had to make an effort to agree with this. The nature of the discussions even then clearly showed that the historical path of Russia was in no way the path to a “bright future”, to the “yawning heights” of communism. This is still the direction emerging in the disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles, but new ones - new Westerners and new Slavophiles.

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

Similar documents

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

thesis, added 10/05/2012


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

course work, added 02/21/2011


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

course work, added 09/06/2011


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

course work, added 11/17/2011


The problem of the “letter” and “open letter” genre, its role in the journals of I.A. Krylova. I. Krylov’s work in periodicals, the problems he raised and descriptions of characters in his works. Features of style and language in the journalistic works of I. Krylov.

course work, added 05/10/2010


Professional ethics of a journalist: the author’s position as an expression of subjectivity. Psychological techniques and ways of demonstrating a journalist’s position. Techniques for openly demonstrating a journalist's position. Methods of hidden manifestation of a journalist's position.

thesis, added 03/30/2003


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

thesis, added 10/20/2011


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

abstract, added 05/06/2014


Event-informational, positive-analytical, critical-analytical, satirical, polemical and discussion forms of journalism. Traditions of Russian journalism. Development of all forms of journalism in the mid-twentieth century. and the growth of public consciousness.

test, added 05/20/2014


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

Introduction

General patterns of the organization of artistic speech, features of the writer’s language and style, and semantic and stylistic transformations of words in a literary text occupied a central place in linguistic research. Particular attention should be paid to the works carried out within the framework of the direction “Functional stylistics of a literary text”, in which the author’s idiostyle is considered based on various microstructures of the text in their specific aesthetic conditioning (N.I. Bakhmutova, M.B. Borisova, E.G. Kovalevskaya, B.A. Larin, G.A. Lilich, D.M. Potsepnya, K.A. Rogova, etc.). In this regard, it is relevant to study the lexical originality, the most expressive, vivid and unusual lexical units of the individual author’s language system.

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

About the life and work of A.I. Solzhenitsyn there is an extensive literature, among which one can highlight more than two dozen monographs, about twenty dissertations, several collective collections and published materials of scientific conferences. But these are mainly literary studies that touch upon problems of a socio-political and ideological nature. Linguistic studies examining the actual lexical system of Solzhenitsyn’s works, created in different periods, are presented only in separate articles. In light of the above, the topic of our research is “Lexical originality of two-part stories by A.I. Solzhenitsyn (“On the Edges”, “The Zhelyabugskys Carved”, “On the Breaks”, “Nastenka”)” sounds relevant.

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

Subject of study – lexical system of these works.

Purpose of the study – identify and describe the lexical originality of two-part stories by A.I. Solzhenitsyn's "On the Edges", "The Zhelyabugskys Carved", "On the Breaks", "Nastenka".

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

1. Describe the creative method of A.I. Solzhenitsyn, features of his short prose.

2. Describe the lexical and stylistic features of A.I.’s short prose. Solzhenitsyn.

4. Research and describe the features of the functioning of colloquial vocabulary in the language of A. Solzhenitsyn’s stories.

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

Main method research became a method of linguistic description, including techniques of observation, analysis, and generalization. Methods of word formation and lexical analysis were also used.

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

1. Theoretical foundations of the study

1.1 Specifics of A.I.’s creative method Solzhenitsyn

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

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

An essay was written in the cancer building of a Tashkent hospital "Rub your eyes", which gives an original interpretation of the play, which is largely polemical in relation to the plan of A.S. Griboedova.

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

The same theme is at the center of the novel. "In the first circle". "Sharashka", in which Gleb Nerzhin, Lev Rubin (his prototype - Kopelev) and Dmitry Sologdin (prototype - famous philosopher D.M. Panin), contrary to the will of the authorities, turned out to be a place where “the spirit of male friendship and philosophy soared under the sailing vault of the ceiling. Perhaps this was the bliss that all the philosophers of antiquity tried in vain to define and indicate? Solzhenitsyn’s thought is paradoxical, but we should not forget that before us is only the “first circle” of a half-Dantean, half-prison “hell”, where there is no real torment yet, but there is scope for thought: in spiritual and intellectual terms, this “first circle” turns out to be very fruitful. Thus, the novel describes Nerzhin’s slow return to the Christian Orthodox faith, shows his attempts to comprehend the revolutionary events of 1917 in a new way, and depicts Narzhin’s “walking among the people” - his friendship with the janitor Spiridon (all these motives are autobiographical). At the same time, the title of the novel is symbolically ambiguous. In addition to the “Dantean” one, there is also a different interpretation of the image of the “first circle”. From the point of view of the hero of the novel, diplomat Innokenty Volodin, there are 2 circles - one inside the other. The first, small circle is the fatherland; the second, big one is humanity, and on the border between them, according to Volodin, there is “barbed wire with machine guns... And it turns out that there is no humanity. But only fatherland, fatherland, and different for everyone...” Volodin, calling the American embassy, ​​tries to warn the military attache that Soviet agents stole from the United States atomic bomb- he does not want Stalin to take possession of it and thus strengthen the communist regime in the USSR. The hero sacrifices his life for the sake of Russia, for the sake of the fatherland enslaved by totalitarianism, but “having found the fatherland, Volodin found humanity.” The title of the novel simultaneously contains the question of the boundaries of patriotism and the connection between global and national issues.

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

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

In the story "Cancer Ward" The reader is presented with “a mosaic of individual chronicles - the “personal affairs” of heroes, central and secondary, always correlated with the formidable events of the 20th century.” All the inhabitants of the ward for cancer patients depicted in the story are forced in one way or another to solve the problem of their personal attitude towards possible imminent death, based on their own life experience and their individuality. The volume of works by L.N. that ended up in the ward. Tolstoy makes them think about the question: “How do people live?” The appearance of this motif on the pages of “Cancer Ward” may suggest a direct influence of Tolstoy’s ideas on the writer, but Solzhenitsyn emphasized that Tolstoy was never a moral authority for him and that, in comparison with Tolstoy, F.M. Dostoevsky “poses moral questions more sharply, deeply, more modernly, more visionarily.” At the same time, the high appreciation of Tolstoy as an artist is indicative, so it is not surprising that in constructing a large epic form the writer partly follows the Tolstoy tradition. At the same time, there is no doubt that the modernist prose of E.I. influenced the poetics of Solzhenitsyn’s works. Zamyatina, M.I. Tsvetaeva, D. Dos Passos. Solzhenitsyn is a writer of the 20th century, and he is not afraid of new and unusual forms if they contribute to a more vivid artistic embodiment of the depicted reality.

Indicative in this sense is the writer’s desire to go beyond traditional genres. So, "Gulag Archipelago" has a subtitle "The experience of artistic research." Solzhenitsyn creates a new type of work, bordering between fiction and popular science literature, as well as journalism. “The Gulag Archipelago,” with its documentary accuracy of depicting places of detention, is reminiscent of Dostoevsky’s “Notes from the House of the Dead,” as well as books about Sakhalin by A.P. Chekhov and V.M. Doroshevich, however, if earlier penal servitude was primarily a punishment for the guilty, then in Solzhenitsyn’s time it was used to punish a huge number of innocent people; it serves the self-affirmation of totalitarian power. The writer collected and summarized vast historical material that dispels the myth about the “humanity” of Leninism. The crushing and deeply reasoned criticism of the Soviet system produced the effect of a bomb exploding throughout the world. The reason is that this work is a document of great artistic, emotional and moral power, in which the darkness of the depicted life material is overcome with the help of a kind of catharsis. According to Solzhenitsyn, “The Gulag Archipelago” is a tribute to the memory of those who died in this hell. The writer fulfilled his duty to them, restoring the historical truth about the most terrible pages of Russian history.

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

The continuation of the memoirs “A Calf Butted an Oak Tree” is an autobiographical book “A grain landed between two millstones”(1978), subtitled "Essays on Exile". It tells about the fate of the writer during the years of forced stay outside Russia. Publication of this book has not yet been completed.

10-volume tetralogy "Red Wheel" is dedicated to a detailed and historically in-depth depiction of the February Revolution of 1917 and its origins. The writer collected and used many documents from the time he studied. No historian has yet described February events in such detail, literally hour by hour, as Solzhenitsyn did in “The Red Wheel”.

Solzhenitsyn considers The Red Wheel an epic, rejecting such genre definitions, like a novel or an epic novel. This work is deeply innovative and exceptionally complex. Apart from purely art chapters it also contains “overview” chapters that examine certain historical events. These chapters gravitate toward the genre of artistic exploration. At the same time, the tetralogy contains montage of newspaper materials (a technique borrowed from Dos Passos), and artistic media screenplay dramaturgy (“screen”). In addition, some chapters consist of short fragments, each a few lines long. Thus, Solzhenitsyn’s epic “receives a structure completely different from the traditional realistic novel.” .

In the 90s Solzhenitsyn returned to the small epic form. In "two-part" stories "Youngsters" (1993),"Nastenka" (1995), "Apricot Jam", "This", "On the Edges"(all – 1994), "Doesn't matter" (1994–95), "At the Breaks" (1996),"Zhelyabug settlements"(1998) and a small “one-day story” "Adlig Schwenkitten"(1998) intellectual depth combined with architectonic perfection, a dialectically ambiguous vision artistic reality- with the finest sense of words. All this is evidence of Solzhenitsyn’s mature skill as a writer.

1.2 Lexico-stylistic features of A.I.’s prose Solzhenitsyn

ABOUT Another feature of the writer’s individual author’s style is the writer’s work to expand the possibilities of linguistic expression. Work on the vocabulary of the Russian language is not limited to the creation of vivid language images in works of art. Moreover, it is the writer’s work as a linguist that anticipates and determines the linguistic features of his literary works. The writer meaningfully and purposefully strives to enrich the Russian national language, as evidenced by his linguistic articles, the ideas about the Russian language expressed in interviews, and the Dictionary of Language Expansion.

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

For example, the language of the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” clearly indicates that the writer is implementing his large-scale plan for the lexical expansion of the Russian language. First of all, it is necessary to highlight the vocabulary, which is actually the author’s formations. Characteristics Such lexemes are disposability and the ensuing non-normativity, dependence on context, expressiveness, polysemy and belonging to a specific author-creator. Based on the listed features within the framework of the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” author's occasionalisms can be defined as follows - these are lexical units that are not noted in dictionaries or used in a meaning not noted in dictionaries, created by the author for only one language situation. Often these are truncated forms of words, formed by cutting off affixes more modern origin, rather than the root (for example, circle, heating, from afar). There are occasional words formed by ablation (non-linear addition, in which one truncated stem modifies the meaning of another stem and can approach the function of an affix, for example, take on your size, lopotno). Rooting must be distinguished from the simple connection of two roots, each of which completely retains its shape. This is how, for example, occasionalisms are formed stubborn, quick-witted, digger. Among occasionalisms there are forms formed with the help of highly productive affixes from high-frequency roots (for example, step by step, hesitantly, terpelnik).

Lexical occasionalisms A.I. Solzhenitsyn are created within the framework of four main parts of speech: nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs. Particular preference is given to the formation of complex words. Addition created not only nouns (RUNNING-RAIK, GENERAL-ITCHING, TRIP-GAME, SOLDIER-RUNNER, ARROW-CLAWS, STEP-JUMP, etc.), adjectives (BUGLY-UNCLEAN, TERRIBLE-HAPPY, CHILDREN-PILLOW, SIGNIFICANTLY-MYSTERIOUS, ROUND-Drawn, INCENSE-BLUE, etc.), which is common for the language, but also verbs (BURNING-SMOKING, PLAYING-FIGHTING, SEARCHING-ASKING, WALKING-LISTENING, etc.), as well as adverbs ( ICY-KINDLY, SNAP-KIND, QUICKLY, INEXPRESSIBLY ALIEN, TEARY-KNEE-KIND, MICROUS-WELFUL, etc.) .

Solzhenitsyn's occasionalisms, embodied in the form of adverbs (and specifically adverbs of manner of action), resonate most sharply. It is in this part of speech that the writer most fully combines the possibility of word creation and the richness of the phenomenon it expresses. An example of a borrowed form, but transformed occasional semantics, is the following adverb:

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

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

ATTENTION, heed what, I listen and heed, arch. howl, listen carefully, listen, greedily absorb with hearing; to assimilate what you hear or read, to direct your thoughts and will towards it [Dal, I: 219].

A prisoner in a camp eats his portion not only attentively (concentrated), but greedily absorbing, absorbing, assimilating everything he can, directing all his thoughts and his will to it.

The adverb is formed according to the same morphological scheme reluctantly from the verb to stumble (to stumble), i.e. ‘to step unsuccessfully, to stumble’. In this case, the adverb is a sign of the verb walk, absent from the sentence but implied. Yes, a phrase awkwardly along the ramp can be expanded to a sentence Walking along the ladder is inconvenient because you can easily stumble or take a wrong step. This is the so-called “law of economy” in the linguistic creativity of A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

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

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

Get it naked in the snow, how to sew up those windows was not easy (“One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”).

Console from - emphasizes exhaustion, completeness of manifestation of action Get it- it's not only get, but also to contrive and obtain, to exhaust and obtain.

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

Complex adjectives in A.I. Solzhenitsyn is mainly two-component. Few cases of use more components for the formation of a complex word, and one of the components can be a complex formation in itself (TWO-AND-HALF-YEAR-OLD (debate), NON-LOCAL (Kurlov), LOVELY-AFTERNESS-FRIENDLY, BLACK-WASTARD-BANDIT (stickman’s muzzles), etc. ). An occasional complex adjective can be “self-sufficient”, i.e. it itself is the context of the formation of occasional semantics (SNOW-BLUE (ridge), BLUE-LILOVE (clouds), SHAROGOLOVYY (sergeant-major), PUSHISTOUSYY (Yanushkevich), LARGE-EYED (reserve), etc.).

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

2. Lexical originality of A. Solzhenitsyn’s two-part stories “On the edges”, “Zhelyabug settlements”, “On the breaks”, “Nastenka”

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

Under lexical occasionalisms we understand such lexical authorial new formations that did not previously exist in the literary language. We share the opinion of E.A. Zemskaya, who believes that these words “arise not according to the rules. They realize creative individuality and live not in series, but alone.”

Lexical occasionalisms are words of mostly one-time use, although they can be used in other works of the same author. The question of the authorship of words is controversial. T. Vinokur gave a deep and convincing answer to this question: “In no particular case can we say with confidence that we are dealing with words that Solzhenitsyn “took and made up.” Moreover, it is unlikely that he himself would have decided to precisely define the boundary between the created and the reproduced, so close, as a rule, is the speech environment that he portrays as a member of (and therefore, to some extent, the creator of) ) he is" . If Solzhenitsyn did not himself, or rather, he did not create these words alone, then he was their co-creator. They form the basis of his idiostyle. In practice, the creation (creation) of lexical occasionalisms occurs with a violation of the systemic productivity of word-formation laws.

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

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

We have identified two types of occasionalisms in stories:

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

I began to learn horsemanship, with good straightening. Six months later he was promoted to the training team, graduated as a junior non-commissioned officer - and from August 16th in the dragoon regiment he went to the front. (“On the edges”)

They stood near Tsaritsyn, then sent them to Akhtuba against the Kalmyks: the Kalmyks were so stupid, they all, as one, did not recognize Soviet power, and did not you'll suck it up them. (“On the edges”)

But THEY also have information: since they came to the bandits’ parking lot, abandoned in a hurry, - and found there a copy of the order according to which they came here! (“On the edges”)

Already like this got scared- neither for the authorities, nor for the PARTIZANTS, but only: let go of your soul. (“On the edges”)

And the supply in the Red Army is strong interrupted, then they give rations, then nothing. (“On the edges”)

They will drink a makhotka with milk, and a pot - hit the ground, get angry.

And they forced a peasant teenager to drive his cart with a squadron luggage along with the red chase, he said from the heart: “If only you could catch up with these guys as soon as possible, and let me go to my mother.”

The women gasp shout out howl. “Close ranks. Who are the bandits among you?” Recount, selected for another execution. At this point they can’t stand it, they start giving it away. And whoever picked it up and ran away, in different directions, you won’t shoot everyone.

In the formation of nouns, the use of verbal prefixes is observed, through which the effect of evaluative expression is achieved. The created words realize Solzhenitsyn’s creative potential and create his individual idiostyle.

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

New meanings take newly created words beyond those meanings that are fixed in known explanatory dictionaries. The linguistic nature of the vocabulary of this class changes; they move from the sphere of usage to the field of occasional.

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

2.2 Colloquial vocabulary in two-part stories

T.G. Vinokur, as a subtle and deep researcher of the language of Russian fiction, gave a detailed analysis of the language and style of Solzhenitsyn’s story, and very highly valued the presence of “colloquial” words in his style, since they “renew the usual associative connections and images.” They, together with the context, help the reader to correctly understand the meaning of occasionalism.

The writer uses colloquial vocabulary to characterize the characters:

There is something more eternal and unshakable than them! What was more dynamic, sharp-sighted, and resourceful in the later? In the Andropov years, how many elite people poured here from higher education! Vsevolod Valeryanovich himself only graduated from law school, but physicists, mathematicians, and psychologists worked alongside him: getting to work in the KGB was a visible personal advantage, and interest, and the feeling that you were really influencing the course of the country. These were smart positions in the whirlwinds of a new crazy time - Kosargin changed his mind. They plucked at the vein, and it could even lead far. ("At the Breaks")

There are also usages of colloquially reduced words:

They are working enemies! (“On the edges”)

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

Conclusion

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

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

The second chapter of the study is devoted to the study of the originality of the author’s occasionalisms in the stories “The Zhelyabugsky Carved”, “At the Breaks”, “Nastenka”, and the peculiarities of their functioning. Here we explored and described the features of the functioning of colloquial vocabulary in the language of A. Solzhenitsyn’s stories.

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

Works by A.I. Solzhenitsyn represent material that reveals the hidden potential of the Russian national language, representing the possibilities of its development. The main direction is to enrich the vocabulary through such groups as the author's occasional vocabulary, slang vocabulary, and dialect-colloquial vocabulary.

Features of the artistic language of A.I. Solzhenitsyn were a reaction to the current situation in Soviet fiction and journalistic literature: the orientation towards a neutral style and a tendency towards clichés.

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

List of used literature

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

2. Vinokur G.O. On the study of the language of literary works // Selected works on the Russian language / G.O. Distiller. – M.: State. educational and pedagogical publication. Min. education of the RSFSR, 1959. pp. 229–256.

3. Gerasimova E.L. Sketches about Solzhenitsyn / E.L. Gerasimova. – Saratov: Publishing House “New Wind”, 2007. pp. 90–105

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

6. Zhivov V.M. How the “Red Wheel” rotates / V.M. Zhivov // New world. – 1992. – No. 3. – P. 249

7. Zemskaya E.A. and others. Word formation // Modern Russian language: Textbook / V.A. Beloshapkova, E.A. Zemskaya, I.G. Miloslavsky, M.V. Panov; Ed. V.A. Beloshapkova. – M.: Higher. school, 1981. P. 35

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

9. Knyazkova V.S. Reflection of the lexical originality of A.I.’s prose Solzhenitsyn in Slovak translations (based on the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”). Abstract of Ph.D. Philol. Sciences / V. S. Knyazkova. – St. Petersburg, 2009.

10. Melnikova S.V. On the role of lexical potential in idiostyle by A.I. Solzhenitsyn (on the example of lexical and word-formative dialectisms of the “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion”) // A.I. Solzhenitsyn and Russian literature: Scientific reports / S.V. Melnikova. – Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 2004. pp. 259–263.

11. Nemzer A.S. Christmas and Resurrection / A.S. Nemzer // Literary review. – 1990. – No. 6. – P. 33.

12. Niva Zh. Solzhenitsyn / Zh. Niva. – M.: Khud. Lit., 1992. P. 58

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

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

15. Solzhenitsyn A.I. “Woe from Wit” through the eyes of a prisoner / A.I. Solzhenitsyn. – M., 1954.

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

17. Solzhenitsyn A.I. Journalism: In 3 volumes / A.I. Solzhenitsyn. – Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzh. Publishing house, 1995. T. 1. P. 25

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

19. Urmanov A.V. Poetics of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s prose / A.V. Urmanov. – M., 2000. P. 131

Melnikova S.V. On the role of lexical potential in idiostyle by A.I. Solzhenitsyn (on the example of lexical and word-formative dialectisms of the “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion”) // A.I. Solzhenitsyn and Russian literature: Scientific reports / S.V. Melnikova. - Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 2004. pp. 259–263

Solzhenitsyn A.I. Journalism: In 3 volumes / A.I. Solzhenitsyn. - Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzh. publishing house, 1995.

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

Niva Zh. Solzhenitsyn / Zh. Niva - M: Khud lit., 1992. P. 58.

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

Vinokur G.O. On the study of the language of literary works // Selected works on the Russian language / G.O. Distiller. - M.: State. educational and pedagogical publication. Min. Education of the RSFSR, 1959. P. 233.

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

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize laureate, lived difficult life, full of challenges. For making unflattering statements about Stalin, he was sent to a prison camp.

This contributed to the development of his literary abilities; in his world-famous works “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” and “In the First Circle,” Solzhenitsyn described the life and morals of those who found themselves in exile, and the torment that those whose activities had to endure the authorities were not happy with it.

In 1975, Alexander Isaevich published an essay of his own memoirs, which was called “A calf butted with an oak tree.”

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

Brief biography of Solzhenitsyn

Solzhenitsyn has always been talked about as a separate phenomenon that combined the trends of a certain historical era. The biography of the writer himself suggests that his fate is the fate of many people who had to survive Stalin's repressions.

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

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

These events in his life speak of how significant and influential a person Solzhenitsyn was for Russia. His literature is dedicated to the truth - deep, not denigrating or whitewashing anything or anyone, the goal of his literary activity has always been so that some can tell the truth, and others can finally hear it.

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

The writer’s memoirs, which are revealed in the book “The Calf Butted an Oak Tree,” are devoted to a real look at those things in Solzhenitsyn’s biography that were well known to the public. The book describes in detail the situation with the Nobel Prize.

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