V and Lukin mot corrected with love to read. A spendthrift, corrected by love" - the first example of a Russian "tearful comedy"

The sharpness of Lukin’s literary intuition (far exceeding his modest creative capabilities) is emphasized by the fact that, as a source for his “propositions,” he in most cases chooses texts where a talkative, talkative or preaching character occupies a central place. This increased attention to the independent dramatic possibilities of the act of speaking in its plot, everyday writing or ideological functions is unconditional evidence that Lukin was characterized by a sense of the specifics of “our morals”: Russian enlighteners, without exception, attached fateful meaning to the word as such.

Very symptomatic is the practical exhaustion of most of the characters in “Mota Corrected by Love” and “The Scrupulous One” by the pure act of ideological or everyday speaking, not accompanied on stage by any other action. A word spoken out loud on stage absolutely coincides with its speaker; his role is subject to the general semantics of his word. Thus, the word seems to be embodied in the human figure of the heroes of Lukin’s comedies. Moreover, in the oppositions of vice and virtue, talkativeness is characteristic not only of protagonist characters, but also of antagonist characters. That is, the act of speaking itself appears to Lukin as variable in its moral characteristics, and talkativeness can be a property of both virtue and vice.

This fluctuation of a general quality, sometimes humiliating, sometimes elevating its bearers, is especially noticeable in the comedy “Mot, Corrected by Love”, where a pair of dramatic antagonists – Dobroserdov and Zloradov – equally share large monologues addressed to the audience. And these rhetorical declarations are based on the same supporting motives of a crime against a moral norm, repentance and remorse, but with a diametrically opposed moral meaning:

Dobroserdov. ‹…› Everything that an unhappy person can feel, I feel everything, but I suffer more than he does. He only has to endure the persecution of fate, and I have to endure repentance and gnawing conscience... From the time I separated from my parents, I constantly lived in vices. I deceived, dissembled, pretended ‹…›, and now I suffer worthily for it. ‹…› But I am very happy that I recognized Cleopatra. With her instructions I turned to virtue (30).

Zloradov. I’ll go and tell her [the princess] all his [Dobroserdov’s] intentions, make him extremely upset, and then, without wasting any time, reveal that I myself have fallen in love with her a long time ago. She, enraged, will despise him and prefer me. This will certainly come true. ‹…› Repentance and remorse are completely unknown to me, and I am not one of those simpletons who are horrified by the future life and the torments of hell (40).

The emotional pattern of the action of the so-called “comedy” is determined by a completely tragic series of concepts: some characters in the comedy are tormented by despair and melancholy, they lament, repent and are restless; they are tormented and gnawing by their conscience, they consider their misfortune as retribution for guilt; their permanent state is tears and crying. Others feel pity and compassion for them, which serve as motivation for their actions. For the image of the main character Dobroserdov, such absolutely tragic verbal motifs as the motifs of death and fate are very relevant:

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

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

Zloradov. Oh, bad fate! (78); Dobroserdov-lesser. May he receive a worthy retribution for his villainy (80).

Preferring words over action is not just a flaw in Lukin’s dramatic technique; it is also a reflection of the hierarchy of reality in the educational consciousness of the 18th century, and an orientation towards the artistic tradition already existing in Russian literature. Journalistic in its original message and seeking the eradication of vice and the inculcation of virtue, Lukin’s comedy, with its emphasized ethical and social pathos, resurrects the tradition of Russian syncretic preaching-the-word at a new stage of literary development. The artistic word, put in the service of intentions foreign to it, hardly by chance acquired in Lukin’s comedy and theory a shade of rhetoric and oratory - this is quite obvious in its direct appeal to the reader and viewer.

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

Imagine, reader. ‹…› imagine a crowd of people, often more than a hundred people. ‹…› Some of them sit at the table, others walk around the room, but all of them construct punishments worthy of various inventions to beat their rivals. ‹…› These are the reasons for their meeting! And you, dear reader, having imagined this, tell me impartially, is there even a spark of good morals, conscience and humanity here? Of course not! But you will still hear! (8).

However, the most curious thing is that Lukin draws on the entire arsenal of expressive means of oratory in the most vivid morally descriptive fragment of the preface, in which he gives a unique genre picture from the life of card players: “Here is a living description of this community and the exercises that take place in it” (10) . And it is hardly by chance that in this seemingly bizarre alliance of high rhetorical and low everyday writing style traditions, Lukin’s favorite national idea reappears:

Others are like the pallor of the face of the dead ‹…›; others with bloody eyes - to the terrible furies; others through despondency of spirit - to criminals who are being drawn to execution; others with an extraordinary blush - cranberries ‹…› but no! It’s better to leave the Russian comparison too! (9).

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

Remarks in the texts of Lukin’s comedies note, as a rule, the address of speech (“brother”, “princess”, “worker”, “Scrupulous”, “nephew”, “to the side”, etc.), its emotional intensity (“angry”, “with annoyance”, “with humiliation”, “crying”) and the movements of the characters around the stage with the registration of a gesture (“pointing at Zloradov”, “kissing her hands”, “falling to his knees”, “makes different body movements and expresses his extreme confusion and frustration").

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

V. I. Lukin

Mot, corrected with love

Comedy in five acts

(Excerpts)

Zapadov V. A. Russian literature of the 18th century, 1770-1775. Reader M., "Enlightenment", 1979.

FROM THE PREFACE TO THE COMEDY "THE MOT CORRECTED BY LOVE"

Most comic and satirical writers now take up the pen for one of the following three reasons. According to the first in order to glorify his name out of self-love, showing both fellow-countrymen and fellow-countrymen a work that is worthy of their attention for a while, and through it to attract readers to show themselves respect... According to the second, in order to make a profit, regardless of whether his work is useful to society, and forgetting that the writer must acquire self-interest, which is characteristic of all people, if not a useful, then certainly a harmless means for his fellow citizens. According to the third, in order to satisfy envy, malice and revenge, with which they are often infected against some people, or so that, due to the innate hatred towards all neighbors, which does not tolerate the well-being of others, they harm innocent virtue with words and writing. But since all works produced for such reasons are so disgusting to me that I, for the very sin of it, intend to someday give them a place in my heart, so I set to pen, following only one heartfelt impulse, which makes me seek to ridicule vices and my own in the virtues of pleasure, and benefit to my fellow citizens, giving them an innocent and amusing pastime... I called my comedy “Waste, Corrected by Love” in order to, as a precaution, show young people the dangers and shame that come from waste, to have ways to please everyone viewers, according to the differences in their inclinations. One and very small part of the orchestra loves characteristic, pitiful and noble thoughts filled with thoughts, and the other, and the main one, loves funny comedies. The taste of the first ones was established from that time, as they saw the Detushevs and Shosseevs ( Philip Nerico Detouche(1680--1754) and Pierre Claude Nivelle de La Chaussee (1692--1754) - French playwrights, authors of "serious" comedies.) the best comedies. For this, I had to try to introduce pitiful phenomena, which, without calling my comedy “Mot, corrected by love,” I would not be so capable of doing... My hero Dobroserdov, it seems to me, truly has a kind heart and with it the gullibility combined, that and his destruction was... I showed in him most of the young people and I wish that most of them, if not better, at least, would be corrected by the same means, that is, by the instruction of virtuous mistresses... A servant was made by me very virtuous, and some of the condemners who took up arms against me told me that we have never had such servants before. “It will happen,” I told them, “but I made Vasily for this purpose, to produce people like him, and he should serve as a model. “I was ashamed, my dears,” I continued, “and to see that in all the translated comedies the servants are great slackers and that at the end, almost all of them are left without punishment for cheating, while others also receive rewards. - Having heard This, with an abusive smile, one of them said to me: but why suddenly such a chosen and prolific moral teaching for this vile kind? To this I am responsible: in order to cleanse him of meanness and teach him zeal for his masters and actions befitting any honest person... ...Detushev's servant Mota is a free man, and Vasily is a serf. He, being free, gives money to his master in extreme extremes; I admit that the virtue of such a low person is great, but Vasilyev is greater. He is released and receives an award, but does not accept both. Let us suppose that money is a trifle for him; but freedom, this precious thing, about which they seem most of all and for which the good ones of them, their young ones, diligently serve you in order to free themselves from bondage in old age - however, Vasily despises freedom and remains with his master. Here is an exemplary virtue, and one that even among the boyars cannot be called common... Now it remains for me, finishing this preface, to assure all readers that I wrote “Mota” not at all in order to satirically sarcastic my fellow countrymen, but solely a home for their benefit and to give them innocent pleasure... ...I myself know that my comedy is not enriched with excellent and selective thoughts, but is written as close as possible to the models that make it up. My main desire, which can be fulfilled very easily, is to see myself succeeding in this type of writing. .. 1765

ILO CORRECTED BY LOVE

COMEDY IN FIVE ACTS

(Excerpt)

Characters

Dobroserdov big ) Dobroserdov smaller ) siblings Princess, a widow, in love with big Dobroserdov. Cleopatra, niece of the princess, mistress of the great Dobroserdov. Zloradov. Stepanida, the princess's maid. Vasily, uncle of the big Dobroserdov. Panfil, servant of the younger Dobroserdov. Having climbed, the solicitor. Pravdolyubov. Dokukin. Unrelenting. Widow, carriage maker. Karetnitsyn's daughter (no speeches). Servant of the great Dobroserdov. Magistrate's Clerk. Mailers (no speeches). Several merchants and a cab driver, lenders of the big Dobroserdov (no speeches).

The action takes place in Moscow, in the princess's house.

(The gullible young man Dobroserdov-bolshoy (i.e., the elder) became interested in card games and in two years squandered his father’s estate, incurred debts, which was greatly facilitated by the advice of his imaginary friend, the insidious Zloradov, whose bad influence Dobroserdov’s servant tried in vain to fight, his Uncle Vasily. Fortunately for himself, Dobroserdov fell in love with the virtuous Cleopatra, who reciprocated his feelings, and, in order to see her more often, settled in the house of the princess, with whom he is forced to pretend to be in love. Dobroserdov’s proposal to flee from Moscow to the village with his younger brother Cleopatra rejects, at the moment of explanation the princess enters; angry, she sends Cleopatra supposedly to a monastery, while Zloradov incites Dobroserdov’s creditors to put the hero in prison as an insolvent debtor. Dobroserdov is going to flee Moscow.)

ACT FIVE

Scene VI

Basil (entering). What do you want? Dobroserdov. Is everything ready? And have you found out about Cleopatra? Basil. Everything, sir, is ready, and I asked Mavra that the princess does not want to cut your mistress’s hair, she only intends to hide it for a while. Dobroserdov. I'll find her everywhere! But now with your sincerity you are aggravating the gnawing of my conscience... And I am not able to repay a worthy reward for all your services; but as much as I have, I will share with you. That's half of my wealth! And here's your vacation pay! From now on you are free. Go and look for happiness elsewhere, and leave me alone to end my ill-fated life. It won't last long. Accept and don't deny! Basil. I won’t take either one or the other, sir. And when at that time I did not lag behind you, when I endured every need and saw your disfavor towards me, then can I leave you when you have become virtuous and have a greater need for my services than before? I am not reminding you of the past in order to sadden you more, but to assure you of my zeal. I will not part with you forever. Dobroserdov. O rare virtue in a person of such a state! You surprise me with your honesty. And I have already been punished enough for doubting you. Basil. You were not the only one who doubted me, and I have already learned how difficult it is to earn a name as a good person. If I were a slacker, then together with Zloradov I would rob you and... Dobroserdov. Don't remind me of him. You have already proven to me your good heart. Basil. But I must confess that your late parent taught me these honest actions. He always observed the truth, and tried to remove vices from his servants. But for whom? Everything for your children, to confirm them in virtue. Dobroserdov. Don't remind me of my parent's virtues. They confuse me more. As much as he was virtuous, I am so vicious. Now I won’t go to my uncle and brother, but I’ll go wherever fate shows me the way. Accept this and say goodbye to me forever. Basil (falling to his knees). If you value my services and loyalty in anything, then... Dobroserdov (raising Vasily). Get up! Basil (getting up and continuing his speech). So at least keep it with you for them. Take my advice and go to your uncle... Dobroserdov. Don't force me. Basil. Taking care of yourself, fulfill my request. God himself will turn your uncle to pity for your appeal, and if you don’t go to him, then I won’t leave you. Dobroserdov. Don't convince me anymore. I'm ashamed to show myself to them. Once again I ask you! Take it as a reward for all your loyalty. Basil. And I still dare to ask you, that you, at least not for your servant, but for your own benefit and for the sake of saving the pity of Cleopatra, eat... Kindhearted. By saying her name, you can force me to do anything. Moreover, gratitude tells me not only to listen to your advice, but also to obey it. Let's go to my uncle. Let us save dear Cleopatra, and then I will prove my gratitude to you. (They want to go, but at that time a widow and her daughter enter.)

PhenomenonVII

Dobroserdov, Vasily and widow with daughter

Dobroserdov. Oh my God! You sent this poor woman to greater torment for me, but she will not be deceived. Widow. Don't be angry, sir, that I came to bother you. The very extreme forced me to do this. You know that my late husband waited a year for his debt on you, and I’m waiting for a year and a half. Have mercy on the poor widow and orphans! Here is the eldest of them, and there are four more left at home. Dobroserdov. I know, madam, that I am guilty before you, but I cannot pay you all the money and I swear that I don’t have more than three hundred rubles. Take them, and you will, of course, receive the remaining hundred and fifty in three days or less. Although you will hear that I will not be in the city, do not worry. This person will hand them to you; trust me and leave me alone. Widow. I'm happy with that too (leaves).

PhenomenonVIII

Dobroserdov and Vasily

Dobroserdov. Now I’ll leave the city, and you stay here. I’m no longer ordering, but please listen to me! Sell all my things and please this poor widow. I hope that you can get that much for my dress and underwear. Basil. I’m not from you... Dobroserdov. Do not disobey my request, and when I already agree to yours, fulfill mine too. If you please, I will go straight to my uncle, and you, having corrected the situation, will find me with him. Sorry!

(The creditor merchants bring, at the instigation of Zloradov, the magistrate's clerk and messengers to take the big Dobroserdov to prison. However, the smaller Dobroserdov, who unexpectedly appears, announces that his deceased uncle left all his fortune to his brothers, and the debts of the big Dobroserdov, who became very rich, can To ensure that the “magistrate's team” was not called in vain, the merchants decide to send Zloradov, who is also their debtor, to prison.)

PhenomenonXII

Princess, B. Dobroserdov, M. Dobroserdov, Vasily and Zloradov (who makes various body movements and expresses his extreme confusion and upset)

B. Dobroserdov (to brother). Although you saved me from dishonor, you are not able to bring me complete well-being. I will no longer see my beloved... M. Dobroserdov. You will see her this very hour. Vasily, go and ask Madame Cleopatra here. She is sitting in a carriage at the gate. Basil. Immediately, sir. B. Dobroserdov. What? She... she is here... M. Dobroserdov. You'll see her right away. Zloradov. O perverse fate! Princess. What do I hear!

PhenomenonXIII

Princess, B. Dobroserdov, M. Dobroserdov and Zloradov

B. Dobroserdov. But aren't you flattering me? I'll run to her myself. (He runs, and the younger brother, having reached, stops.) Princess (to the side). How can I see her? I'll die of shame. (To Zloradov.) Get away from me, you dissolute one. M. Dobroserdov (to brother). Don't go, just stay here. I will tell you how unexpectedly I was able to bring your mistress. Approaching Pereslavskaya Yamskaya, I met a carriage and heard that those sitting in it asked me to stop. When I came out, I saw Cleopatra and Stepanida, and this honest maid informed me about all your misfortune and said that instead of the monastery she was taking Cleopatra, without telling her, straight to the village of your late uncle, and on the way she wanted to notify you about it. On the contrary, I announced to them the exchange of your happiness, and Stepanida and I forcibly persuaded your mistress to return here. B. Dobroserdov. A! Dear brother, you give me life! Zloradov (to the side). Is it milked? The stupid girl turned all my cunning into nothing!

PhenomenonXIV

The same, Cleopatra, Stepanida and Vasily

Princess. I don’t dare look at her, and my legs cannot support me. (Leans his elbows on the chairs and covers himself with a scarf.) B. Dobroserdov (rushing to Cleopatra and kissing her hands). Dearest Cleopatra! Let me kiss your hands, and first of all listen to my request. Forget the past! Forgive your aunt! She's not to blame for anything (looking at Zloradov), and he is the reason for everything. Tell her that not only will you not exact anything from her, but you will give her a good village to live on. I am now so rich that I have no need for your dowry. I ask this from you as a sign of your love for me. Do it!.. Cleopatra (To Dobroserdov). I will do more than that. (Leaving him, he runs to the princess, wants to fall at her feet, but she does not allow her; however, she takes her hand and kisses it.) It’s not me, madam, who should forgive you, but you should forgive me my guilt for daring to return against your will. I’m alive here, I didn’t see any annoyance and I had to obey you in everything according to the orders of my parent... Forgive me! I am his words (pointing to Dobroserdov) I confirm and ask with tears... Princess (crying). Stop bringing me to such shame! Stop it, dear niece! By your humility you multiply my repentance... I am so guilty before you that I am not worthy of such magnanimousness. (Pointing to Zloradov.) This villain got me into everything! But in my future life I will try to make amends for my guilt... From this moment I will leave my previous actions and until death I will always be with you... (They hug.) Zlofadov (during the princess’s speech he tried to leave twice, but, suddenly gathering strength, returned and, approaching Dobroserdov, he tells him with humiliation). When you are all so generous here, I hope to be forgiven. B. Dobroserdov. As for me... M. Dobroserdov. No, brother! Shouldn't forgive him. Through this we will do a lot of harm to honest people. Let him receive a worthy retribution for his crime, and if he corrects himself, then I will not be the first to refuse to help him. Zloradov (M. Dobroserdov). When you despise me so much now, I try to do you harm first of all. There is time ahead, and I will use it to build destruction for all of you. (He leaves, and as soon as he opens the door, Dokukin and his comrades, waiting for him, take him.) Basil (following Zloradov). Now we are not afraid of you, and they are waiting for you at the gate. (How soon will the merchants pick it up, he says.) Yes, now you have already fallen into the hole that you were preparing for your friend.

The last phenomenon

Princess, Cleopatra, B. Dobroserdov, M. Dobroserdov, Stepanida and Vasily

M. Dobroserdov. Do you see what he is like? B. Dobroserdov. I forgive him everything. Princess. So forgive me my guilt, following the example of your mistress, and when she still honors me with respect and friendship, then I will use the power given to me over her in your favor. (Takes Dobroserdov and Cleopatra by the hands.) I always agree with your well-being and ask that you not deprive me of your friendship. Cleopatra. I will forever be your humble niece. B. Dobroserdov. My respect for you will not change after death, and you can demand any experience from me. I, relying on you, now take the courage to ask for such mercy, which we really need. Princess. I will do everything I can with joy. B. Dobroserdov. Forgive Stepanida, madam, and give her free rein, since I am forever freeing my Vasily. They love each other. Princess. She is in your power, free her! Stepanida (kisses the princess’s hand). I will never forget your kindness, madam, to the grave. B. Dobroserdov (taking Vasily and Stepanida). Now you are free people. Here is the vacation pay that you didn’t want to take for Davich, and I’m giving you two thousand rubles for the wedding, and I want you not to deny it with a single word. Basil (having accepted, he bows). I now accept your favors, and although you set me free, I will forever serve you as a sign of my gratitude. And when you have already become prosperous, then we should only wish that all the girls become like your mistress, and the outdated coquettes, who go to their graves with affectation, following her ladyship, are disgusted by it. If all the spendthrifts followed your example, they would turn to the true path, and the servants and maids, like me and Stepanida, would serve their masters faithfully. Finally, so that the ungrateful and deceitful, fearing their vile vices, should lag behind them and remember that God does not leave villainy without punishment. 1764

NOTES

Vladimir Ignatievich Lukin is the son of a nobleman who served as a footman at court. In 1752, Lukin was appointed as a copyist in the Senate, in 1756 he went into military service as a copyist, and in 1762 he was transferred as a secretary to Hetman K. G. Razumovsky. The beginning of Lukin's literary activity dates back to 1763. Having found a patron in the person of the Empress’s Secretary of State I.P. Elagiv, who at that time was her main assistant in literary and theatrical affairs, Lukin translated the 5th and 6th parts of “The Adventures of the Marquis G***” by Prevost (St. Petersburg. , 1764--1765; the correct four parts were translated by Elagin in 1756--1758). In 1764-1765, Lukin was the most active figure in the “Elagin circle”: he translated and adapted a number of comedies by French playwrights into “Russian morals”; in lengthy prefaces to his plays, he substantiated the idea of the need for borrowing, set out the basic principles of the theory of “transformation”, or “inclination to our morals” (this theory was completely borrowed from the works of the Danish playwright L. Holberg), decisively rejected the principle of a satirical depiction of the social vices of Russian reality and attacked the greatest satirist of the era - Sumarokov. Denying satire “on faces,” Lukin affirmed the principle of satire “on vices.” Finally, Lukin energetically supported the “nationwide” theater created in St. Petersburg according to the idea of Catherine II under police supervision; With the help of this theater, the government was supposed to have a strong means of influencing the “morality” of the people. An example of such “morality”, pseudo-folk “primordial Russian virtue” (as interpreted by Empress Catherine), in the writings of Lukin himself, was supposed to be the image of the servant Vasily - a slave by conviction (see the preface and text of the play “Mot, Corrected by Love”). At the same time, the activities of Lukin (as well as other members of the “Elagin circle”) contributed to an increase in the theatrical repertoire, and the creation of the first examples of the new genre of “tearful comedy” for Russia expanded the possibilities of drama. The servile nature of Lukin's writings and the reactionary meaning of his dramatic activity were correctly understood and condemned by all progressive-minded writers. In the second half of the 1760s, Lukin created several more adaptations, and in 1769, apparently, he collaborated in the pro-government magazine “Everything”, which caused a new wave of attacks on him from satirical magazines (“Drone”, etc. ). Lukin's career was very successful. At the end of 1764, he was officially appointed cabinet secretary under Elagin, in 1774. served in the Main Palace Chancellery, of which Elagin was a member. He accepted Lukin into the Freemasons and made him the Grand Secretary of the Masonic Main Provincial Lodge and the Master of the Chair (i.e., the head) of the Urania Lodge. Lukin rose to the rank of actual state councilor (rank IV class, equal to major general). After 1770, Lukin moved away from literature. The last significant appearance in print was the translation of the 7th and 8th parts of “The Adventures of the Marquis G***”, containing the story of the Chevalier de Grieux and Manon Lescaut (M., 1790).

“COMEDY OF MORALS” IN THE WORK OF V. I. LUKIN (1737-1794)

Thus, the comedic character Neumolkov, who was present at the premiere of the comedy “The Enchanted Belt,” in his reality status turns out to be quite equal to those spectators who sat in the St. Petersburg theater hall on the evening of October 27, 1764. On the stage there are original characters, in theater seats - their real prototypes. Flesh and blood people move easily onto the stage like mirror images; the reflected characters just as easily descend from the stage into the audience; they have one circle of life, one common reality. Text and life stand against each other - life looks in the mirror of the stage, Russian comedy recognizes itself as a mirror of Russian life. Perhaps it is precisely thanks to this visibility that another aspect of its relevance for the Russian literary tradition comes to the fore of the mirror comedic world image: moral teaching, the social functionality of comedy - the nerve of the “prepositional direction” and the higher meaning for the sake of which it took shape as an aesthetic theory:

Chistoserdov. You've seen comedies several times and I'm glad that you liked them<...>appeared in their true form. You did not consider them pleasure for the eyes, but benefit for your heart and mind ( "Scrupulous", 192-193).

The passion of the first Russian spectators, who acquired a taste for theatrical spectacles, to see in the performance the same life that they led outside the theater, and in the characters of the comedy - full-fledged people, was so strong that it provoked an incredibly early act of self-awareness of Russian comedy and gave rise to the phenomenon of mistrust of the author to its text and the insufficiency of the literary text in itself to express the entire complex of thoughts that are contained in it. All this required auxiliary elements to clarify the text. Lukin's prefaces and comments, accompanying each artistic publication in “Works and Translations” of 1765, bring comedy as a genre closer to journalism as a form of creativity. The cross-cutting motive of all Lukin’s prefaces is “benefit for the heart and mind,” the ideological purpose of comedy, designed to reflect social life with the sole purpose of eradicating vice and representing the ideal of virtue with the aim of introducing it into social life. The latter is also a mirror act in its own way, only the image in it precedes the object. This is precisely what motivates Lukin’s comedy:

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

The same motive of direct moral and social benefit of the spectacle determines, in Lukin’s understanding, the purpose of comedy as a work of art. The aesthetic effect that Lukin thought of as the result of his work had for him, first of all, an ethical expression; the aesthetic result - the text as such with its artistic characteristics - was secondary and, as it were, accidental. Characteristic in this regard is the dual focus of comedy and the theory of the comedy genre. On the one hand, all of Lukin’s texts pursue the goal of changing the existing reality distorted by vice towards a moral norm:

<...>By ridiculing the Pustomeli, it was necessary to hope for correction in people subject to this weakness, which in those who had not yet completely destroyed good morals, and followed<...>(Preface to the comedy "Idle talker", 114).

On the other hand, this negating attitude towards correcting a vice through its exact reflection is complemented by the exact opposite task: having reflected a non-existent ideal in a comedy character, comedy strives to cause by this act the emergence of a real object in real life. In essence, this means that the transformative function of comedy, traditionally recognized for this genre by European aesthetics, is adjacent to Lukin’s directly creative one:

Some of the condemners who took up arms against me told me that we had never had such servants before. It will happen, I told them, but I made Vasily for this purpose, in order to produce others like him, and he should serve as a model. (Preface to the comedy "Mot, corrected by love",12.)

It is not difficult to notice that the goals of comedy, realized in this way, organize direct relations between art as a reflected reality and reality as such according to the established models of satire and ode already known in Russian literature of modern times: negative (eradication of vice) and affirmative (demonstration of the ideal). Thus, in the background of Lukin’s ideology and ethics is aesthetics: the ubiquitous genre traditions of satire and ode. Only now these previously isolated trends have discovered a desire to merge into one genre - the genre of comedy. The rapid self-determination of comedy in Russian social life, accompanied by the theoretical self-awareness of the genre as a way of self-determination in ideological Russian life, caused consequences, albeit of two kinds, but closely related. Firstly, comedy, which became a part of national social life with its own place in its hierarchy (the main means of public education), immediately caused a parallel process of intensive expansion of this very life within its framework. Hence the second inevitable consequence: national life, which for the first time became the object of comedic attention, entailed the theoretical crystallization of the idea of national Russian comedy, especially paradoxical against the backdrop of the Western European genesis of the plots and sources of his comedies, which Lukin persistently emphasized. One’s own, however, can only be recognized as such against the background of someone else’s. For example, Sumarokov’s comedies provoked sharp rejection by Lukin with their obvious international plot and thematic realities. However, against the backdrop of these realities, the national originality of the genre model of Sumarokov’s comedies is especially obvious. Lukin's comedy demonstrates the inverse relationship between these same aesthetic categories: the realities are our own, but the genre model is alien. The emphasized opposition of comedy, “inclined to Russian morals,” with foreign comedy, which served as its stronghold, which constitutes the whole meaning of the term “translation,” automatically brings to the fore the category of national specificity of life and the genre that reflects this life. But at the same time, the actual aesthetics of Lukin’s comedy, and this is precisely what should be considered the theory of “transformation” and “inclination to our morals,” i.e. saturation of the source text with national everyday realities, since this is what distinguishes the Russian “output text” from the European “input text”, is secondary in relation to ideology and ethics. Attention to national signs of everyday life is dictated not by artistic interest in this very everyday life, but by the “higher content” of comedy, an extraneous goal:

<...>I will incline all comic theatrical works to our customs, because the audience does not receive any correction in other people's morals from comedy. They think that it is not them, but strangers who are being ridiculed.” (Preface to the comedy "Awarded Consistency" 117.)

The result is not so much a comedy “in our manners”, but rather an idea of a comedy “in our manners” that is yet to appear. But this situation, when the idea, the idea of what should be, is primary and precedes its embodiment in a material object, is completely consistent with the ideas of the 18th century. about the hierarchy of reality. That specific and deeply nationally peculiar turn that the concept of “our morals” acquired under the pen of Lukin had a decisive influence, first of all, on poetics, and then on the problems and formal characteristics of the comedy genre, serving its aesthetic transformation in a fundamentally unconventional structure already beyond Lukinsky system of comedy, from Fonvizin, his successors and heirs. It is obvious that the central concept in Lukin’s comedy theory and practice is the concept of “our morals,” which constitutes a shift between “strangers” and “us,” recognized as the national specificity of Russian theater. Lukin was so firmly able to introduce the category of “our morals” into the aesthetic consciousness of his era that according to the criterion of compliance with “mores” they were assessed until the end of the 18th century. all notable comedy innovations. (Cf. N. I. Panin’s review of the comedy “Brigadier” “<...>“The first comedy is in our morals.”) Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to find out what exactly Lukin understood by the word “mores,” which concentrated the whole meaning of his comedic innovation. And at the very first attempt to define the concept of “our morals” based on Lukin’s declarative statements, an amazing thing is discovered, namely, that the traditional understanding of the category of “mores” is only partially relevant for Lukin. Actually, of all his theoretical statements about “our morals,” only the clerk with a marriage contract falls into this series, who outraged Lukin in Sumarokov’s first comedy with the unnatural alliance of a native Russian word with an overly European function:

<..>A Russian clerk, coming to any house, will ask: “Is M. Orontes’s apartment here?” “Here,” they will tell him, “what do you want from him?” - “Write a wedding contract.”<...>This will turn a knowledgeable viewer's head. In genuine Russian comedy, the name Orontovo, given to the old man, and the writing of a marriage contract are not at all characteristic of the clerk (118-119).

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

It has always seemed unusual to me to hear foreign sayings in such works, which are supposed to correct, by depicting our morals, not so much the common vices of the whole world, but the vices common to our people; and I have repeatedly heard from some spectators that not only their reason, but also their hearing is disgusting if persons, although somewhat similar to our morals, are called Clitander, Dorant, Citalida and Kladina in the performance and speak speeches that do not signify our behavior.<...> There are many more and very small expressions: for example, I recently arrived from Marselia, or I walked in Tulleria, was in Versailles, saw the viccompte, sat with the marquise, and other foreign things.<...> And what kind of connection will there be if the characters are named like this: Geront, the clerk, Fonticidius, Ivan, Fineta, Crispin and the notary. I can’t figure out where these thoughts might come from in order to make such an essay. This matter is truly strange; otherwise it is even stranger to consider it correct (111-113,119).

Perhaps, this apology for the Russian word as the main visual means of Russian life is embodied especially vividly in the preface to the comedy “The Shchepetilnik”, written specifically about the indigenous Russian word and its visual possibilities:

I am writing this preface in defense of just one word<...>, and must certainly defend the name given to this comedy.<...>what word could be used to explain the French word Bijoutier in our language, and I did not find any other way than to, having entered into the essence of that trade from which the French got its name, to come to terms with our trades and consider whether there is something similar to it, that I am without great I found the work and offer it here.<...>And so, having complete disgust for foreign words, our ugly language, I called the comedy "Scrupulous"<...> (189-190).

And if Russian comedians even before Lukin happened to play with the clash of barbarisms with indigenous Russian words as a laughing device, a caricature of Russian vice (cf. the macaronic speech of Sumarokov’s gallomaniacs), then Lukin for the first time not only begins to consciously use a stylistically and nationally colored word as a characterological and evaluative reception, but also draws special attention to it from the public. In the comedy “The Mot, Corrected by Love,” a note was made to the Princess’s remark: “You will stand by my toilet”: “The foreign word is spoken by a coquette, which is proper for her, and if she had not spoken, then of course it would have been written in Russian” (28 ). We find the same kind of note in the comedy “The Scrubber”:

Polydor: If and where there are two or three guests like us, then the company is not considered sparsely populated. All foreign words speak patterns to which they are characteristic; and Shchipetilnik, Chistoserdov and Nephew always speak Russian, except occasionally they repeat the word of some empty talker (202).

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

Poetics of the comedy “The Sprawler, Corrected by Love”: the role of the speaking character The sharpness of Lukin’s literary intuition (far exceeding his modest creative capabilities) is emphasized by the fact that, as a source for his “propositions,” he in most cases chooses texts where a talkative, talkative or preaching character occupies a central place. This increased attention to the independent dramatic possibilities of the act of speaking in its plot, everyday writing or ideological functions is unconditional evidence that Lukin was characterized by a sense of the specificity of “our morals”: Russian enlighteners, without exception, attached fateful meaning to the word as such. Very symptomatic is the practical exhaustion of most of the characters in “Mota Corrected by Love” and “The Scrupulous One” by the pure act of ideological or everyday speaking, not accompanied on stage by any other action. A word spoken out loud on stage absolutely coincides with its speaker; his role is subject to the general semantics of his word. Thus, the word seems to be embodied in the human figure of the heroes of Lukin’s comedies. Moreover, in the oppositions of vice and virtue, talkativeness is characteristic not only of protagonist characters, but also of antagonist characters. That is, the act of speaking itself appears to Lukin as variable in its moral characteristics, and talkativeness can be a property of both virtue and vice. This fluctuation of a general quality, sometimes humiliating, sometimes elevating its bearers, is especially noticeable in the comedy “Mot, Corrected by Love,” where a pair of dramatic antagonists - Dobroserdov and Zloradov - equally divide large monologues addressed to the audience. And these rhetorical declarations are based on the same supporting motives of a crime against a moral norm, repentance and remorse, but with a diametrically opposed moral meaning:

Dobroserdov.<...>Everything that an unhappy person can feel, I feel everything, but I suffer more than he does. He only has to endure the persecution of fate, and I have to endure repentance and gnawing conscience... From the time I separated from my parents, I constantly lived in vices. Deceived, dissembled, pretended<...>, and now I suffer worthily for it. <...> But I am very happy that I recognized Cleopatra. With her instructions I turned to virtue (30). Zloradov. I’ll go and tell her [the princess] all his [Dobroserdov’s] intentions, make him extremely upset, and then, without wasting any time, reveal that I myself have fallen in love with her a long time ago. She, enraged, will despise him and prefer me. This will certainly come true.<...>Repentance and remorse are completely unknown to me, and I am not one of those simpletons who are horrified by the future life and the torments of hell (40).

The straightforwardness with which the characters declare their moral character from the first appearance on stage makes us see in Lukin a diligent student not only of Detouche, but also of the “father of Russian tragedy” Sumarokov. Combined with the complete absence of a laughter element in Mota, such straightforwardness prompts us to see in Lukin’s work not so much a “tearful comedy” as a “philistine tragedy.” After all, the psychological and conceptual verbal leitmotifs of the play are oriented precisely towards tragic poetics. The emotional picture of the action of the so-called “comedy” is determined by a completely tragic series of concepts: some characters of the comedy are tormented by despair And melancholy, lament, repent And are restless; their torments And conscience gnaws yours misfortune they revere retribution for guilt; their permanent state is tears And cry. Others feel for them a pity And compassion, serving as incentives for their actions. For the image of the main character Dobroserdov, such absolutely tragic verbal motifs as the motifs of death and fate are very relevant:

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

Zloradov. Oh, bad fate! (78); Dobroserdov-lesser. May he receive a worthy retribution for his villainy (80).

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

Imagine, reader.<...>imagine a crowd of people, often more than a hundred people.<...>Some of them sit at the table, others walk around the room, but all of them construct punishments worthy of various inventions to beat their rivals.<...>These are the reasons for their meeting! And you, dear reader, having imagined this, tell me impartially, is there even a spark of good morals, conscience and humanity here? Of course not! But you will still hear! (8).

Some are like the pale faces of the dead<...>; others with bloody eyes - to the terrible furies; others through despondency of spirit - to criminals who are being drawn to execution; others with an extraordinary blush - cranberries<...>but no! It’s better to leave the Russian comparison too! (9).

Regarding the “cranberry”, which really looks like a certain stylistic dissonance next to the dead, furies and criminals, Lukin makes the following note: “This comparison will seem strange to some readers, but not to all. There must be nothing Russian in Russian, and here, it seems, my pen has made no mistake<...>" (9). So again, Sumarokov’s theoretical antagonist Lukin actually draws closer to his literary opponent in practical attempts to express the national idea in the dialogue of older Russian aesthetic traditions and attitudes of satirical everyday life writing and oratory. And if Sumarokov in “The Guardian” (1764-1765) for the first time tried to stylistically differentiate the world of things and the world of ideas and bring them into conflict, then Lukin, parallel to him and simultaneously with him, begins to find out how the aesthetic arsenal of one literary series is suitable for recreating realities another. Oratorical speaking with the aim of recreating the material world image and everyday life, pursuing the high goals of moral teaching and edification - this is the result of such a crossing of traditions. And if in “Mota” Lukin mainly uses oratorical speech in order to create a reliable everyday flavor of the action, then in “The Scrupuler” we see the opposite combination: everyday descriptive plasticity is used for rhetorical purposes.

Poetics of the comedy “The Scrubber”: synthesis of odo-satirical genre formants Lukin “inflected the comedy “The Scrupulous Man” into Russian morals” from the English original, Dodelli’s morally descriptive comedy “The Toy-shop,” which already during Lukin’s time was translated into French under the name “Boutique de Bijoutier” (“Haberdashery Shop”). It is very noteworthy that Lukin himself, in his “Letter to Mr. Elchaninov,” persistently calls both his original and its version “inclined to Russian morals” as “satires”:

<...>I began to get ready to turn this Aglin satire into a comic work.<...>. (184). <...>I noticed that this satire was quite well remade for our theater (186). It [Dodeli's text], transformed into a comic composition, can be called quite good both in content and in caustic satire<...> (186). <...>I received the opportunity to deliver this satirical essay into Russian (188).

It is obvious that the word “satire” is used by Lukin in two meanings: satire as an ethical tendency (“caustic satire”, “satirical essay”) is adjacent to satire as a genre definition (“this Aglinsky satire”, “this satire”). And in full accordance with this second meaning is the world image that is created in “The Shrewd Man” primarily as an image of the world of things, dictated by the very motives of a haberdashery shop and small haberdashery trade, which serve as the plot core for stringing together episodes with a satirical moral descriptive task: an absolute analogy with a genre model of Cantemir’s cumulative satire, where the vice expressed by the concept is developed in a gallery of everyday portraits-illustrations, varying the types of its carriers. Throughout the action, the stage is densely filled with the most diverse things, completely physical and visible: “Both workers, having placed the basket on the bench, take out things and talk.”(197), discussing the merits of such objects hitherto unseen on the Russian stage as spotting scope, groups of cupids depicting art and science, gold watch with alarm clock, snuff boxes alagrek, alasaluet and alabucheron, notebook framed in gold, glasses, scales, rings And rarities: shells from the Euphrates River, which, no matter how small they are, can accommodate predatory crocodiles And stones from the island of Never Never. This parade of objects moving from the hands of the Shrewd Man into the hands of his customers is symptomatically opened by a mirror:

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

It is no coincidence that it is the mirror, in its relationship with the reality it reflects, connecting the object and the mirage in likening them to the point of complete indistinguishability, that reveals the true nature of the thing-attributive series in the comedy “The Scrupuler”, which, despite all its formal adherence to satirical everyday poetics, is still ideological, high comedy, since the entire visual arsenal of everyday descriptive plasticity serves in it as a starting point for speaking quite oratorically, if not in its form, then in its content. The thing in “Scrupulous” is a stronghold and a formal occasion for ideological, moralistic and didactic speaking. Lukin's fundamental plot innovation in relation to the original text - the introduction of additional characters, Major Chistoserdov and his nephew, Shchipetilnik's listeners, radically changes the sphere of genre gravity of the English-French morality-descriptive sketch. In the “inclined to our morals” version, the presence of listeners and observers of the haberdashery trade directly on stage turns the meaning of comedy towards education, instilling ideal concepts of office and virtue:

Chistoserdov. I’m already extremely sorry that that mocking Shrewder is still missing<...>; You’ve already heard about it from me more than once. By standing near it, you will recognize more people in two hours than by surviving in the city for two years (193);<...>I brought my nephew here on purpose so that he could listen to your descriptions (201); Chistoserdov. Well, nephew! Do his instructions seem to you as I said? Nephew . They are very pleasant to me, and I wish to listen to them more often (201); Chistoserdov. This evening enlightened my nephew a lot. Nephew (To the scrupulous one).<...> I am for happiness mail, if<...>I will receive useful advice from you (223).

Thus, the everyday-descriptive plot of the comedy is relegated to the background: the dialogues of the Scrupulous Man with customers are filled with “higher content” and acquire the character of demonstrating not so much a thing and its properties, but rather the concepts of vice and virtue. The everyday act of buying and selling becomes a unique form of exposure and edification, in which a thing loses its material nature and turns into a symbol:

Scrupulous. In this snuffbox, no matter how small it is, some of the courtiers can contain all their sincerity, some of the clerks all their honesty, all the coquettes without exception their good manners, helipads all their reason, attorneys all their conscience, and poets all their wealth (204) .

Such a crossing at one point of two planes of action - everyday life and moral description on the one hand, instruction and education - on the other, gives the word in which both actions of the “Scrupuler” are carried out a certain functional and semantic vibration. It is, the word, in “The Scrubber” very bizarre. In its immediate content, it is closely related to the material series and therefore is figurative; It is no coincidence that both he and his partners call Shchitelnik’s monologues descriptions:

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

But this property characterizes the word in “Scrupulous” only at first glance, because ultimately it has a high meaning and claims to immediately transform reality towards its harmonization and bringing it closer to the ideal of virtue:

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

Addressed and addressed not only to the audience, but also to the listening characters (Chistoserdov and his nephew), the word of the Shchiter is only in form everyday and figurative, but in essence it is a high oratorio, seeking an ideal, and therefore it combines two opposing rhetorical attitudes: panegyric things are blasphemed to the vicious buyer; both the thing and the human character are equalized by their argumentative function in action, serving as nothing more than a visual illustration of the abstract concept of vice (or virtue). Consequently, immersed in the elements of material life and descriptions of vicious morals, the action of “The Scrupuler” actually acquires a high ethical goal and pathos; it operates with ideologemes of honor and office, virtue and vice, although stylistically these two spheres are not distinguished. And in this capacity, the synthesis of everyday and ideological world images, carried out by Lukin on the material of European comedy, turned out to be incredibly promising: Russified comedy seemed to begin to suggest in which direction it needed to be developed so that it could become Russian. Let us remember that the action of raising a pure-hearted nephew begins with a mirror (cf. the famous epigraph of “The Inspector General”), reflecting the crooked faces of pettymeters, coquettes, nobles, etc. looking at it, and ends with a quote from Boileau’s 7th satire, bringing together laughter and tears in one affect and already sounded earlier in Russian literature: “<...>often the same words that make readers laugh bring tears to the writer's eyes<...>”(224), as well as the reflection that “no one likes to laugh at themselves” (224), in which, with all the desire, it is impossible not to hear the first weak sound, which is about to achieve fortissimo strength in the cry of the soul of Gogol’s Mayor: “Why are you laughing ? “You’re laughing at yourself!” And isn’t it strange that Lukin, who reproached Sumarokov for the lack of beginnings and endings in his comedies, ended up writing the same one himself? And after all, he not only wrote, but also theoretically emphasized these properties of it: “I also regretted a lot that this comedy almost cannot be played, because there is not a love entanglement in it, below the beginning and the denouement<...>"(191). The absence of a love affair as the driving force of comedy and a specific action that seems to have no beginning or end, because the end is closed to the beginning, like life itself - is it possible to more accurately describe the productive genre model that lies ahead for Russian drama in the 19th century? Batyushkov once remarked: “Poetry, I dare say, requires the whole person.” . Perhaps, this judgment can be applied almost more successfully to Russian high comedy from Fonvizin to Gogol: Russian comedy demanded immeasurably more than the whole person: the whole artist. And absolutely all the modest opportunities that the writer V.I. Lukin possessed of average dignity and democratic origin were exhausted by his comedies of 1765. But he left them to future Russian literature, and above all to his colleague in the office of Count N.I. Panin, Fonvizin, a whole scattering of semi-conscious discoveries, which under the pens of other playwrights will sparkle with their own brilliance. However, the moment of Fonvizin’s first high-profile fame (the comedy “Brigadier”, 1769) will coincide with his participation in an equally important literary event of the era: the playwright’s collaboration in the satirical magazines of N.I. Novikov “Drone” and “Painter”, which became the central aesthetic factor of the transition period of Russian history and Russian literature of the 1760-1780s. The genres of journalistic prose developed by the staff of Novikov’s magazines became a particularly clear embodiment of the tendencies towards crossing everyday and existential world images in the totality of their inherent artistic techniques of world modeling, those tendencies that first emerged in the genre system of Sumarokov’s work and found their first expression in Lukin’s comedy of manners.

Term by P. N. Berkov. See his monograph: History of Russian comedy of the 18th century. L., 1977. P.71-82.
Lukin V. I., Elchaninov B. E. Works and translations. St. Petersburg, 1868. P. 100. In the following, Lukin’s prefaces and comedies are quoted from this edition, indicating the page in brackets.
Toporov V. N.“Inclination towards Russian customs” from a semiotic point of view (About one of the sources of Fonvizin’s “Minor”) // Works on sign systems. XXIII. Tartu, 1989 (Issue 855). P.107.
Fonvizin D. I. Sincere confession of my deeds and thoughts // Fonvizin D. I. Collection cit.: In 2 vols. M.;L., 1959.T.2. P.99.
“The general expression of a person’s properties, the constant aspirations of his will<...>. The same property of an entire people, population, tribe, not so much dependent on the personality of each, but on what is conventionally accepted; everyday rules, habits, customs. See: Dal V.I. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language. M., 1979.T.2. P.558.
See about this: Berkoe P. Ya. History of Russian comedy of the 18th century. L., 1977. P.77-78.
Before Fonvizin, the “ready-made and tested framework” of comedy action, with which its original Russian nature did not fit well, was obvious in almost all comedy writers: in Sumarokov - in the form of plot fragments, behind which Western European texts are discerned; in Lukin and the playwrights of the Elagin school - these plots themselves in its entire (slightly modified) form, and Fonvizin did not go anywhere from the “transformation” even in “The Brigadier”. Only in “The Minor” did the “framework” of comedy become completely “their own”: they caused a lot of bewilderment and critical judgments with their unusual form, but it was no longer possible to reproach them for the lack of originality and national identity.
The symmetrical ring composition of the publication, subject to the principle of parity (two parts of two comedies each), in its structural foundations is extremely reminiscent of the symmetrical mirror structure of the four-act comedy “Woe from Wit”, in the compositional units of which scenes with a predominance of love and social issues. Cm.: Omarova D.A. Plan of Griboedov's comedy // A. S. Griboyedov. Creation. Biography. Traditions. L., 1977. P.46-51.
Remarks in the texts of Lukin’s comedies note, as a rule, the address of speech (“brother”, “princess”, “worker”, “Scrupulous”, “nephew”, “to the side”, etc.), its emotional intensity (“angry”, “with annoyance”, “with humiliation”, “crying”) and the movements of the characters around the stage with the registration of a gesture (“pointing at Zloradov”, “kissing her hands”, “falling to his knees”, “makes different body movements and expresses his extreme confusion and frustration").
As O. M. Freidenberg noted, a person in tragedy is passive; if he is active, then his activity is a fault and a mistake, leading him to disaster; in comedy he must be active, and if he is still passive, another one tries for him (the servant is his double). - Freidenberg O. M. The origin of literary intrigue // Proceedings on sign systems VI. Tartu, 1973. (308) P.510-511. Wed. in Roland Barthes: the sphere of language is “the only sphere to which tragedy belongs: in tragedy one never dies, for one speaks all the time. And vice versa - leaving the stage for the hero is somehow equivalent to death.<...>For in that purely linguistic world which is tragedy, action appears as the extreme embodiment of impurity.” - Bart Roland. Rasinovsky man. // Bart Roland. Selected works. M., 1989. P. 149,151.
Wed. from Kantemir: “And poems that put laughter on the lips of readers // Often the cause of tears for the publisher” (Satire IV. To one’s muse. On the danger of satirical writings - 110).
Batyushkov K. N. Something about the poet and poetry // Batyushkov K. N. Experiments in poetry and prose. M., 1977. P.22.

This fluctuation of a general quality, sometimes humiliating, sometimes elevating its bearers, is especially noticeable in the comedy “Mot, Corrected by Love”, where a pair of dramatic antagonists - Dobroserdov and Zloradov - equally share large monologues addressed to the audience. And these rhetorical declarations are based on the same supporting motives of a crime against a moral norm, repentance and remorse, but with a diametrically opposed moral meaning:

Dobroserdov. ‹…› Everything that an unhappy person can feel, I feel everything, but I suffer more than he does. He only has to endure the persecution of fate, and I have to endure repentance and gnawing conscience... From the time I separated from my parents, I constantly lived in vices. I deceived, dissembled, pretended ‹…›, and now I suffer worthily for it. ‹…› But I am very happy that I recognized Cleopatra. With her instructions I turned to virtue (30).

The straightforwardness with which the characters declare their moral character from their first appearance on stage makes us see in Lukin a diligent student not only of Detouche, but also of the “father of Russian tragedy” Sumarokov. Combined with the complete absence of a laughter element in Mota, such straightforwardness prompts us to see in Lukin’s work not so much a “tearful comedy” as a “philistine tragedy.” After all, the psychological and conceptual verbal leitmotifs of the play are oriented precisely towards tragic poetics.

The emotional picture of the action of the so-called “comedy” is determined by a completely tragic series of concepts: some characters of the comedy are tormented by despair And melancholy, lament, repent And are restless; their torments And conscience gnaws yours misfortune they revere retribution for guilt; their permanent state is tears And cry. Others feel for them a pity And compassion, serving as incentives for their actions. For the image of the main character Dobroserdov, such absolutely tragic verbal motifs as the motifs of death and fate are very relevant:

Zloradov. Oh, bad fate! (78); Dobroserdov-lesser. May he receive a worthy retribution for his villainy (80).

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

Regarding the “cranberry”, which really looks like a certain stylistic dissonance next to the dead, furies and criminals, Lukin makes the following note: “This likening will seem strange to some readers, but not to all. , my pen has made no mistake ‹…›" (9).

Poetics of the comedy "The Scrubber": synthesis of odo-satirical genre formants

Lukin “inflected the comedy “The Scrupulous Man” into Russian morals” from the English original, Dodelli’s morally descriptive comedy “The Toy-shop,” which already in Lukin’s time was translated into French under the name “Boutique de Bijoutier” (“Haberdashery Shop”). It is very noteworthy that Lukin himself, in his “Letter to Mr. Elchaninov,” persistently calls both his original and its version “inclined to Russian morals” as “satires”:

‹…› I began to get ready to turn this Aglin satire into a comic work ‹…›. (184). ‹…› I noticed that this satire was quite well remade for our theater (186). It [Dodeli's text], transformed into a comic composition, both in content and in caustic satire, can be called quite good ‹…› (186). ‹…› I received the opportunity to deliver this satirical essay into Russian (188).

Drama by Kheraskov

Lukin's dramaturgy

In his work, the realistic and democratic tendencies of sentimentalism first found expression. The appearance of his plays in the theater of the 60s meant that the hegemony of the nobility in drama was beginning to waver.

Writer-commoner, pioneer of the struggle against classicism.

He condemns Sumarokov and his orientation towards French classicism, the court audience, which sees only entertainment in the theater. He sees the purpose of theater in an educational spirit: the benefit of theater in correcting vices.

Spendthrift, corrected by love – 1765

Lukin's only original play. The corrupt morals of noble society are condemned, and the types of ordinary people are shown with sympathy.

Action in Moscow. The young nobleman Dobroserdov has squandered his father’s estate in two years and cannot pay his creditors. The culprit is Zloradov, who pushes him into extravagance, profiting himself, and wants to marry the “fifty-year-old beauty” who is in love with Dobroserdov, a rich princess. Dobroserdov is saved by his love for his niece, Princess Cleopatra, and awakens his desire to return to the path of virtue. A sudden inheritance helps pay off creditors.

A major role is played by merchants, who were first introduced into Russian drama by Lukin. The virtuous merchant Pravdolyub is contrasted with Unrelenting and Dokukin. Democratic tendencies - the servants Vasily and Stepanida are not comic characters, but intelligent, virtuous people.

Lukin’s idea about the high price that serfs pay for the extravagance and luxury of the landowners is a social meaning.

This is the first attempt to create Russian drama, reflecting the morals and way of life of modern Russian society.

The founder and largest representative of noble sentimentalism in the drama of the 18th century.

At 50-60 he acts as a poet and playwright of the Sumarokov school. But already in the early works the features of sentimentalism appeared. Critical of life full of evil and injustice. A call for self-improvement and self-restraint; there are no tyrant-fighting and accusatory motives characteristic of Sumarokov’s classicism.

Persecuted – 1775

He preached non-resistance to evil and moral self-improvement as the path to happiness. Don Gaston, a virtuous nobleman, slandered by his enemies, having lost everything, retires to the island. Events develop against the will of the passive and virtuous protagonist. An unknown young man, rescued by Gaston from the sea waves, successively ends up on a deserted island, turns out to be the son of his enemy Don Renaud, the daughter of Zeil, the cat he considered dead, and Renaud himself. Zeila and Alphonse - Renaud's son - love each other, Gaston meets with the enemy. But Gaston's virtue and Christian attitude towards his enemies makes his enemies friends.

The production of tearful dramas required a special design for this play - the 1st act is the seashore, the entrance to the cave, the 2nd is night, a ship appears at sea.

Appears in the early 70s. soon - one of the most popular genres.

Comic opera is a dramatic performance with music in the form of inserted arias, duets, and choruses. The main place belonged to dramatic art, and not to music. The texts are not opera librettos, but drama works.

These drama works belonged to the medium genre - they turned to modern themes, the life of the middle and lower classes, and combined the dramatic principle with the comic. Expanding the democratization of the circle of characters - beyond tearful comedy and bourgeois drama, there are heroes - representatives of the people - commoners and peasants.

The subjects are varied, but special attention was paid to the life of the peasantry. The growth of the anti-serfdom peasant movement forced us to address the question of the life and position of the peasantry.

V and Lukin mot corrected with love to read. A spendthrift, corrected by love" - ​​the first example of a Russian "tearful comedy"

Poetics of the comedy "The Scrubber": synthesis of odo-satirical genre formants

V and Lukin mot corrected with love to read. A spendthrift, corrected by love" - the first example of a Russian "tearful comedy"