R P 23 SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal VOLUME 23 (2019/II) Echoes of Verifications (Voices of The East) cLABIKATER 23 slavica terGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal volume 23 (2019/ii) Echoes of Verifications (Voices of The East) MA TEp slavica terGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal 1592-0291 (print) & 2283-5482 (online) WEB EMAIL PUBLISHED BY EDITORIAL BOARD EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD www.slavica-ter.org editors@slavica-ter.org Universita degli Studi di Trieste Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche, del Linguaggio, dell'Interpretazione e della Traduzione Universität Konstanz Fachbereich Literaturwissenschaft Univerza v Ljubljani Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za slavistiko Roman Bobryk (Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities) Margherita De Michiel (University of Trieste) Tomaš Glane (University of Zurich) Vladimir Feshchenko (Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences) Kornelija Ičin (University of Belgrade) Miha Javornik (University of Ljubljana) Jurij Murašov (University of Konstanz) Blaž Podlesnik (University of Ljubljana, technical editor) Ivan Verč (University of Trieste, editor in chief) Antonella D'Amelia (University of Salerno) Patrizia Deotto (University of Trieste) Nikolaj Jež (University of Ljubljana) Alenka Koron (Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies) Durda Strsoglavec (University of Ljubljana) Tomo Virk (University of Ljubljana) DESIGN & LAYOUT Aljaž Vesel & Anja Delbello / AA Copyright by Authors Contents 8 BMecTO npegHcnoBHH In Place Of An Introduction 12 Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje (Zapis ob štirih knjigah izbranih del Ivana Verča) Verifying the Written while considering Life (On The Four Books of Selected Writings by Ivan Verč) $ ALEKSANDER SKAZA CONTRIBUTIONS 44 KaK nymKMH nonan b ^epHOBa fleppwflM... 06 0gH0M (noHTw) nwTepaTypHOM npow3BegeHMM HBaHa Bepna («coaBTop» - A.C. nymKMH) How Pushkin was reworked Derrida-style... On a certain (almost) literary work by Ivan Verč (coauthored by A.S. Pushkin) $ ROMAN BOBRYK 64 K BonpocaM MeTa^o^TMKM roronH (Cmbictobom MacmTa6 «MepTBMX gym» m «PeBM3opa») The Metapoetical Aspects of Gogol's Artistic Thinking $ ARPAD KOVACS 130 KapaM3HH m Pycco (o noBecTM «Moh wcnoBegt») Karamzin and Rousseau (about the story «My confession») $ O. M. rOHHAPOBA / O. M. GONCHAROVA 152 rony6ou/-an Literature and Russian Holiness roay6aa literatura in ruska svetost $ MIHA JAVORNIK SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications 168 Peripheral Modernism and the World-System: Slovenian Literature and Theory of the Nineteen-Sixties Periferni modernizem in svetovni sistem: slovenska književnost in teorija šestdesetih let 20. stoletja $ MARKO JUVAN 200 From Narrative Parallelism to Prosaic Metaphor (The Problem of Counterpart in the Short Story) Om HappamuBHOzo napannenu3Ma k mukobou Mema^ope npo3u (npoôneMa dyônuKama b HOBenne) $ GABOR KOVACS VARIA 226 Selbstmarketing, Selbstmanagement, Selbstoptimierung, Self-Branding, Self-Tracking: soggetto autorazionalizzante e mercato del lavoro Self-marketing, Self-management, Self-optimization, Self-branding, Self-tracking: self-rationalizing subject and the labor market $ GORANKA ROCCO APPENDIX 2 56 Ivan Verč — Izbrana bibliografija Ivan Verč - Selected Bibliography 7 BMecTO npegHC^OBHH In Place Of An Introduction SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications HaKaHyHe HoBoro gecaTM.eTua Hapagy c n.aHaMu Ha 6ygym.ee b ro.o-By npuxogaT m mwc.m o npom.oM. Korga b 20ii-om rogy Ham »ypHa. noc.e kopotkom nay3w cTa. cHoBa pery.apHo BwxoguTt b hobom ^opMaTe m c hobom pegKo..erueM g.a MHorux coTpygHMKoB u aBTo-poB »ypHa.a m Hana.ocb mx npom.oe, cBa3aHHoe c Slavica TerGestina. Ho y »ypHa.a ecTt u ero co6craeHHaa ucTopua, oh BwxoguT c cepe-guHw geBaHocTwx rogoB u ^T0T nepuog ero npom.oro b ochobhom cBa3aH c npom.wM H.eHa pegKo..eruu u r.aBHoro pegaKTopa »yp-Ha.a, npo^eccopa HBaHa Bepna. HBaH BepH HegaBHo nepemaray. Ba^HBiM npo^eccuoHa.BHWM m KM3HeHHHH py6e», eme go Toro oh nogBe. uToru HayHHoM gea-Te.BHocTM b HeTBipexTOMHoM co6paHMM cbomx HayHHwx TpygoB, rge m b caMoM 3ar.aBMM — «npoBepKM» — craBaTca Bonpocw o 3HaHeHMu .MTeparypoBegnecKux u ryMaHMTapHwx uccnegoBaHuM b KoHTeK-cTe 6o.Bmoro BpeMeHu u uHguBugya^BHoro »M3HeHHoro nyTM. KaK gpy3ta u Ko..eru HBaHa u mbi xoTe.u oTK.uKHyTca Ha ^TM Bonpocw. KoHeHHo He b ^opMe oTBeTa, a b ^opMe HaynHwx paccy»geHuM o 3aHMMaromux Hac npo6.eMax, b kotopwx — HanpaMyro ccw.aact Ha M.M BgoxHoB.aact HayHHBiMu ugeaMu u .mhhbimm B3r.agaMM HBaHa — mw cTapaeMca HaMTu u npoBepuTt cbom co6cTBeHHwe Ba-puaHTw oTBeToB. B nepBtiM mx gByx 3agyMaHHwx BwnycKoB, nocBameHHwx HBa-Hy Bepny, Bom.u craTtu Ko..er u3 CnoBeHuu, no.tmM, BeHrpuu, XopBaTMM m PoccuM, co3gaBaa cBoeo6pa3Hoe «BocroHHoe» ^xo pa3-Mwm.eHMM, Bo3HMKmux Ha poMaHo-c.aBaHcKoM norpaHMHte. B npu.o»eHMM npeg.araeM m cBoero poga oTcTyn.eHue b Buge pa3-Mwm.eHMM o HoBeMmux TeneHuax b pa3BUTUM pwHKa Tpyga b o6.a-ctm nepeBoga m .MHrBMcTMHecKoro m Ky.tTypHoro nocpegHUHecrBa. Ohm bo3hmk.m b TpuecrcKoM yHMBepcuTeTe Ha cTwKe pa3.uHHwx 9 33WK0BeflHeCKMX KOM^eTeH^MM M o6pa3yMT CBOeo6pa3HWM MOCT k c.neflyrom.eMy BtmycKy c6opHMKa, rge HBaHy Bepny u HMTaTe^ro 6ygyT npegcraB^eHti pa6oTw Ro^er-cnaBMcroB m3 HTa^MM. SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications 11 Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje (Zapis ob štirih knjigah izbranih del Ivana Verča)1 Verifying the Written while considering Life (On The Four Books of Selected Writings by Ivan Verč) $ Aleksander skaza ► aleksander.skaza@guest.arnes.si SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications Naslov pričujočega zapisa so mi narekovali dolgoletni pogovori in raz- 1 vi 11 vi 1111 vi i Ivan Verč, Verifiche - misljanja s kolegom Ivanom Verčem o literarnih in kulturoloskih pro- Preverjanja -npoeepKu. ,1, 1 V 1 1 ZTT> EST; EUT blemih. Te pogovore sva pogosto navezovala na vprašanja, ki nama jih - Edizioni delluni-zastavljajo težave in navskrižja sodobnega sveta in potem poskušala 2016. - 4 volumi. nanje odgovoriti tudi s širino filologije in njene nravstvene naravnanosti, kot bi morda dejala Jurij Lotman in Mihail Gasparov (prim. Gaspa-rov 2008. 203). Prijatelj Ivan mi je v elektronskem sporočilu 3. marca minulega leta osvežil sicer vedno prisotno misel na ta najin dolgoletni in še vedno trajajoči dialog kot inteligent, ki lastno življenje zavestno povezuje z raziskovanjem in vrednotenjem Besede in njenega bivanje v času in prostoru posameznika in družbe. V tem sporočilu, ki je odziv na mojo željo, da bi opozoril strokovno javnost na štiri knjige njegovega zbranega dela, med drugim izjavlja. »... pomislil sem na najin pogovor, zadnjič, ko sva se srečala. Govorila sva o tem, da med življenjem in stroko ne more in celo ne sme zijati vrzel. Prepričan sem, da človek piše zato, ker ga nekaj 'martra', ne v stroki, ampak v življenju, v svetu, v katerem živi in na katerega se tako ali drugače odziva. Potem se ozira okoli, išče tam, kjer upa, da mu bo pri tem iskanju kdo pomagal. Strokovno pisanje ni nič drugega kot prevod jezika lastnega bivanja v drug jezik. Vsekakor, v obeh jezikih gre za izvirnike (včasih je v stroki nekoliko manj vidno, ker se opiraš na že izrečene besede). Vendar ne verjamem v strokovno pisanje, ki meša pojme in govori o tekstu ali avtorju samo zato, da govori o sebi. Žanri so različni. Upam si reči, da je vse ali skoraj vse, kar sem zbral v tistih štirih bukvah, prevedljivo v jezik mojega 'zamejstva'.« In potem dodaja: »Članki o zamejstvu niso nič drugega kot prevod marsičesa, kar so me Bahtin in ostali [...] naučili« (Verč2018). 13 ALEKSANDER SKAZA ► Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje Gl. npr. članke: Trst 2000; Confine orientale: di linee, aree e volumi; La libertà di essere sloveni, Prisotnost in pripadnost (Verč 2016, zv. 4). V navedku nakazuje Verč s svojega vidika ob misli na Mihaila Bah-tina povezanost treh področij človeške kulture - življenja, znanosti in umetnosti/literature v enovitosti posameznika in njegove odgovornosti (prim. Bahtin 1999: 7-8). Ob tem govori o različnosti »jezika lastnega bivanja« in jezika strokovnega pisanja ter opozarja na stranpot duhovnega egocentrizma, ki ne upošteva drugosti. Vse to Verč povezuje s svojim »zamejstvom«, v nekem pogledu privilegiranim položajem intelektualca, ki živi in deluje v prostoru dveh kultur (slovenske in italijanske). Filologu tak položaj daruje možnost, da v vsakodnevnem živem stiku z raznolikostjo dveh kultur bogati repertoar pogledov razumevanja in vrednotenja drugih kultur in drugega človeka.2 Rusist Verč to nazorno razkrije v eseju »Moja« Rusija, objavljenem leta 1998 v biltenu Društva Slovenija Rusija (Verč 1998: 78-80). Verč se zaveda, da »živi v prostoru, kjer so kulture v dotiku, kjer so meje med 'mojim' in 'tujim' svetom včasih prav težko določljive, kjer je subjekt toliko bolj suveren, kolikor nosi v sebi zavest o neponovljivosti življenja in kjer enostavno ni alibija (naj citiram Bahtina)« (op. cit.: 80). V omenjenem eseju tako ugotavlja, da je za človeka, ki se je rodil v Trstu, in za primorske Slovence, ki so se po prvi svetovni vojni znašli v novi nastali državi Italiji, Rusija pomenila več kot ostalim Slovencem (op. cit.: 78). In opozarja: »Ko nas je fašizem napadal in zmerjal, ko nam je nasilno dopovedoval, da smo Slovani (it. Slavi) manjvredna sodrga, nam je bila ruska kultura (poleg slovenske, seveda) tista oporna točka, ki nam je vlivala samozavest, daje anti-kulturen pravzaprav tisti, ki nasilno povzdiguje 'svoje' in odvrača vse, kar ni pognalo na njegovem vrtu« (n. m.). 14 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications Navezanost na rusko kulturo pa humanistično naravnanemu slovenskemu filologu, ki je doživljal fašistično nasilje, ne dovoljuje, da bi prezrl vrednote italijanske odprte humanistične kulture in se tako izneveril samemu sebi (gl. op. cit.: 78-79). Filološko etično načelo ne zamegljuje dejstev in tako slovenski filolog, ki mu je blizu ideja »slovanske vzajemnosti«, zna ločiti tudi vrednote v ruski zgodovini trajno prisotnega »zrna svobodomiselnosti in upora« Puškinove »tajne svobode« od totalitarne mentalitete in samodrštva.3 Razgledan filolog ostaja zvest humanistični širini filologije in se ne spozabi, kot se je spozabil sicer »zelo angažirani slovenski intelektualec«, ki je filologa Ivana Verča obiskal na njegovem domu v Trstu ob koncu osemdesetih, in »s prezirom opazoval [filologove] knjižne police, češ, kaj pa sploh počenja s temi brezzveznimi 'ruskimi' knjigami« (op. cit.: 79). Tako zanosen in odgovoren odnos do vsakega trenutka »živega življenja«, kot bi rekli Rusi, in tako široko in odgovorno dojemanje kulture kot celovitosti vsega, kar je človek kot individuum in socialno bitje v obdajajočem ga svetu, mi ob preverjanju Verčevega upokojenskega obračuna kličeta v spomin besede F. M. Dostojevskega, ki zatrjujejo, da se na tem svetu nič ne začne in nič ne konča. - Štiri prijateljeve knjige PREVERJANJA, ki jih sprejemam kot dragoceno darilo, me vračajo v čas razvoja moje slovenske in prijateljeve slovensko-italijanske rusi-stike in najinih vznemirljivih srečanj z mnogimi vidiki tako ruskega formalizma (predvsem peterburškega, pri katerem sva bila pozorna še posebej na dela Jurija Tinjanova) kot Mihaila Bahtina in tartujsko--moskovske šole (pri kateri naju je privlačevala zlasti misel Ju. M. Lot-mana). A ker me nesrečni temperament v debatah »zelo naglo odnese v polemični zanos«, kot meni prijatelj Matjaž Kmecl (Kmecl 2016: 12), me prijateljeva PREVERJANJA, ki naj bi bila nekakšen življenjski obračun upokojenega profesorja, nehote izzivalno vračajo v razburljivo Gl. npr. razprave: Roman mit in roman o mitu. A. Platonov, Čevengur; Limti e possibilité della tra-dizione dantesca nello sviluppo del romanzo russo (Gogol', Dosto-evskij, Belyj; Pil'njak, Bulgakov, Erofeev); Nekaj izhodišč za analizo poetike rusko--sovjetskega romana dvajsetih let (Verč 2016, zv. 2); Dialoške prvine Lotmanove strukturalne poetike (Verč 2016, zv. 3) 15 ALEKSANDER SKAZA ► Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje sedanjost, v kateri me prijateljevo še vedno zavzeto spremljanje dogajanja v literarnem in zunaj-literarnem življenju prepričuje, da štiri knjige zbranega dela še zdaleč ne napovedujejo zaključka prijateljevega aktivnega odnosa do sveta in literarne vede/znanosti. In tako me prijateljevo hotenje razširiti znanje in dokopati se do novih spoznanj o življenju samega sebe in sveta, v katerem biva, opozarja še posebej na dva ključna problemska sklopa (jeziki književnosti in literarna etika), s katerima se prijatelj ukvarja ob spoznavanju in raziskovanju ruske literature in kulture z naslonitvijo na ruske literarno-znanstvene dosežke. 1 Osrednjo pozornost posveča Verč problematiki jezika. V monografiji Razumevanjejezikov književnosti, poglobljeni obravnavi te problematike, govori o jeziku kot o »graditelju resničnosti« (Verč 2010: 118) in to trditev med drugim razširja z ugotovitvijo, »da se vsak pojav kulture pojavlja kot jezik« (op. cit.: 46). Z vidika metodologije pa izjavlja, da je »'Kopernikanska revolucija', ki jo je ruska književnost izvedla na začetku 20. stoletja [...] očitna postala šele v 60. letih prejšnjega stoletja, ko so tudi na Zahodu (Franciji) odkrili formalizem in so 'trdne' literarnovedne metode začele preusmerjati predmet svojega opazovanja od resničnosti, ki naj nam bi jo jezik vračal, k jeziku samemu« (op. cit.: 144-145). Prve vzpodbude za tako osredotočeno zanimanje za jezik in analizo funkcioniranja jezika je Verč sam črpal, če naj dopolnim že povedano o ruskih vzorih, iz del ruskih formalistov - »ljudi desetih in dvajsetih let prejšnjega stoletja, čigar svetovni nazor se je razkrival v besedi - enoti pesniške umetnosti«; še posebej ga je navduševal Ti-njanov, ki »je razkril estetsko neločljivost misli in besede«, kot bi dejala 16 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications Lidija Ginzburg (gl. ruH36ypr 1966: 88). Za intenzivno razmišljanje o jeziku in jezikovnem modeliranju resničnosti, ga je vzpodbujal tudi Jurij Lotman s svojimi raziskavami »umetnost kot jezik« (.floTMaH 1970). A če upoštevam Verčevo neutrudno opozarjanje na »čas in prostor človekovega bivanja v jeziku« (Verč 2010: 79) in njegovo etično načelo o odgovorni povezanosti raziskovalčevega življenja s stroko (Verč 2018), ne morem mimo citata Mihaila Bahtina, navedenega v Verčevi monografiji Razumevanje jezikov književnosti. Ta pravi: »za to, kar sem izkusil in doumel v umetnosti, moram biti odgovoren s svojim življenjem, da ne bi vse, kar sem izkusil in doumel, ostalo neučinkovito v njem« (Verč 2010: 50; gl. tudi Verč 2016i: 162). Citat me ob izjemni pozornosti, ki jo posveča Verč Bahtinovi kategoriji »ne-alibija v bivanju« (gl. EaxTMH 2003: 39; prim. Verč 2010: 52; Verč 2016i: 162) navaja na misel, da širino prijateljevega znanstvenega delovanja v veliki meri opredeljuje metodologija Bahtina filozofa-filologa, avtorja dveh variant monografije o polifonem romanu Dostojevskega (Problemi ustvarjanja Dostojevskega iz leta 1929 in Problemi poetike Dostojevskega iz leta 1963) in nekoliko manj Bahtina filozofa-kulturologa, avtorja knjige o »ljudskem smehu« in »karnevalski kulturi« Ustvarjanje Frangoisa Rabelaisa in ljudska kultura srednjega veka in renesanse iz leta 1965. »Nova beseda« Mihaila Bahtina, ki je filozofsko obravnavo Dostojevskega preusmerila k strukturno-ejdetski razlagi velikega romanista (gl. EonapoB 1999: 475), je tudi literarnega zgodovinarja Verča privedla v krog »bahtinistov« in tako velik del raziskav posveča Dostojevskemu, pesniku »razklane osebnosti in njene nemoči v boju z zasužnjujočo ga zlo 'idejo'« ^tkmha 1999: 414). Tolstoja, »odkrivalca, upodabljavca neznane, neponovljive enkratnosti žive resničnosti« (prim. nacTepHaK 1990: 354), pa Verč nekoliko zapostavi, ko sprejema Bahtinovo opredelitev »monološke« pripovedi, za katero naj bi bile značilne »pomenske 17 ALEKSANDER SKAZA ► Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje 4 prednosti« in »privilegirane avtorske pozicije« (prim. npr. priostreno Bolonjska reforma univerze! oceno Tolstojeve »organizacije pripovedi« v romanu Ana Karenina, ki roman približa publicistiki) (gl. Verč 2010: 70-71). Pravkar nakazana Verčeva pozornost, posvečena jeziku, ob upoštevanju »iskanja pomoči« (Verč 2018) pri klasični ruski literarno-znan-stveni tradiciji, me je z mislijo na prijateljev nasvet, naj ne prezrem »poleg stroke tudi življenjski vidik« (n. m.), napeljala pri razmisleku o njegovem ukvarjanju z metodološkimi vprašanji literarne znanosti v navezavi na krizo literarne vede na sodobnih univerzah4 do kolego-vega programskega teksta, monografije Razumevanje jezikov književnosti, in v njej obravnavane kategorije »modalnost besede književnosti«. 2 Teoretska zasnova kategorije modalnost besede književnosti in prikaz evolucije modalnosti, ki nakazuje »drugačno zgodbo o ruski književnosti«, sta pri Verču v polni meri tvorno navezana na »'trdne' literarnovedne metode« (Verč 2010: 144-145) in ponovil bi, na bahtinsko naravnan odgovoren odnos do povezanosti življenja, znanosti in umetnosti v eno-vitosti človeka in človeške kulture. Verč tako izvaja »človekov odnos do lastnega bivanja v jeziku« iz »Lotmanove misli o kulturi kot tekstu«. In med drugim, ko se sprašuje o odnosu do stvarnosti in resnici o njej, ugotavlja, »da se naše bivanje v jeziku zapleta« - »lahko se zatekamo k enemu samemu od ponujenih jezikov [...] lahko pa smo nekoliko manj dogmatski in sprejemamo možnost, da se resničnost sveta poraja v pripovedi o njem« (op. cit.: 75-77). Opredelitev kategorije modalnost, ki izhaja iz jezikoslovja, pa z mislijo, »da je zgodbo o književnosti mogoče pripovedovati tudi z gledišča modalnosti«, Verč navezuje na kategorijo »sekundarna modalnost«. 18 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications Razkriva jo v »odnosu med subjektom izjave (jaz) in predmetom izjave (ne-jaz) ne glede na objektivno preverljivost predmeta ubeseditve«. Zanjo naj bi bilo značilno, da »'resničnost' ni več logično-semantična kategorija, ampak rezultat zapletenega procesa komunikacije, ki upošteva govorečega, poslušalca, vsebino izjave in jezikovni svet, v katerem se izjava pojavlja« (op. cit.: 78). Tako naravnano razumevanje modalnosti Verč poglobi in razširi s sklicevanjem na postmodernističnega filozofa Mihaila Epštejna in strukturalista Jurija Lotmana. Pri Epštejnu je pozoren na izhodišče, ki odkriva na osnovi treh »bazičnih modalnih glagolskih kategorij nujnosti (velelnika), možnosti (pogojnika) in resničnosti (povednika)« različnost treh literarnih obdobij: usmeritev na racionalno nujnost klasicizma, odkrivanje človekove potencialnosti romantike in izhajanje iz predstave realizma o resničnosti, kakršna je (Verč op. cit.: 78-79; prim. Epštejn 2001: 27). Nakazovanje podobne različnosti med literarnimi obdobji odkriva tudi pri Lotmanu. Verč navaja njegovo misel »razumeti življenje pomeni naučiti se njegovega nejasnega jezika« in ob tem ugotavlja, da je po Lotmanovem mnenju proces »osvajanja resnice« potekal na več načinov: za klasicizem je pesništvo jezik bogov, za romantiko je jezik srca, za obdobje realizma naj bi veljalo, da je »umetnost jezik življenja in z njegovo pomočjo resničnost pripoveduje o sebi« (Verč op. cit.: 79; prim. ^OTMaH 1970: 11). - V kontekstu povedanega se mi vsiljuje misel, da sta navedeni Lotma-novi sodbi postali vodilo za Verčevo razpravljanje o modalnosti v »eni od zgodb ruske književnosti«. Na to me še posebej opozarjata Verčevo sprejetje »trditve, da človek ne živi v resničnosti sveta sami na sebi, temveč vsakič v reprezentaciji te« in ob njej zastavljeno vprašanje »kaj ta vsakič pomeni« (Verč 2010. 79). Ta »vsakič« so, kot nakazuje Verč, različne prepletajoče se faze modalnih odnosov med človekom, ki piše ali govori izbrano besedo, in jezikovnim svetom resničnosti, 19 ALEKSANDER SKAZA ► Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje v katerem se človek in njegova beseda pojavljata. Književnost naj bi bila privilegirano področje za opazovanje teh faz (n.m.). Sledeč Lotmanu (in Epštejnu), Verč razširi definicijo modalnosti »na odnos vsebine povedanega do ubesedene resničnosti v pojmovanju govorečega« in to razširitev dopolni s trditvijo, da »se jezikovna modalnost ne izrisuje kot odnos povedanega do (ne)določljive resničnosti sveta, temveč kot odnos do jezika, ki 'vsakič' to resničnost ubeseduje«. Jezikovna modalnost po sodbi Verča naj bi torej bila »zgodba o jezikovnem odnosu do drugega jezikovnega odnosa«. »Eno od zgodb ruske književnosti« naj bi tako predstavile »štiri modalnosti tega odnosa«, ki da so značilne za rusko kulturo (op. cit.: 80-81). 3 Štiri modalnosti, ki naj bi predstavile »eno od zgodb ruske književnosti«, so po sodbi Verča: modalnost 1: jezik Boga, modalnost 2: jezik bogov, modalnost 3: jezik življenja in modalnost 4: jezik jezika. Vsaka Verčeva opredelitev štirih modalnosti bi zaslužila posebno pozornost, ker pa je monografija Razumevanje jezikov književnosti pri obravnavi modalnosti besede književnosti osredotočena na problematiko ruskega realizma, se bom omejil v skladu z naravnanostjo pričujočega zapisa na razmislek o obravnavi modalnosti 3: »jeziku življenja« in z njo povezanimi vprašanji. Osrednje vprašanje, ki ga zastavlja obravnava modalnosti 3: jezika življenja (in modalnosti nasploh), je, kot kaže, vprašanje o razmerju med Verčevim odnosom do ambivalentne (ne)določljivosti sveta in resnice o njem v sodobnih kriznih razmerah do tradicije ruske kulture. Odgovor na to vprašanje mi posredno nakazuje prijateljeva zasnova »ene od zgodb ruske književnosti«, ki med drugim ugotavlja, da je za rusko 20 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications književnost »odnos vsebine povedanega do resničnosti veliko več kot 5 Termin Borisa samo modalnost jezika, je kulturna kategorija«. Na to ugotovitev se na- Ejhenbauma nume- vezujeta sodbi, da »ruski bralec od umetnika zahteva 'resnično' resnico (podčrtal A.S.) in da estetika kot odločujoča kategorija igra »v ruski kulturi sekundarno vlogo« (Verč 2010: 80). Če sem ob tem pozoren še na opombo, ki spremlja ti dve ugotovitvi, mi kontekst vsaj deloma nakazuje, kako literarno življenje 5 Rusije, še posebej sodobne, pogojuje Verčevo razmišljanje. V opombi je namreč zapisana trditev, kako je dejstvo, da je »za ruskega bralca književnost veliko več kot estetska kategorija, razvidno tudi iz razočaranja nad njeno učinkovitostjo«. Verč se pri tem sklicuje na radikalnega avtorja Kolimskih zgodb Varlama Šala-mova, ki »ne verjame v književnost, v njeno sposobnost, da bi izboljšala človeka« in na polemična razmišljanja v obdobju razpada Sovjetske zveze o »'krivdi' velike ruske literarne tradicije za tragedijo 20. stoletja« (n. m.). - Povedano me navaja na domnevo, da Verč, ko snuje z vidika modalnosti »eno od zgodb ruske književnosti« ob misli na tradicijo ruske kulture in upoštevanju ambivalentne (ne)določljivosti stvarno--zgodovinskega sveta posveča pozornost predvsem umetniški resnici, zgodovinska resnica je nekje na robu. »Drugi stvarnosti«, ki jo ustvarja fikcija, izhajajoča iz pisateljevih življenjskih izkušenj in spoznanj (prim. TMH36ypr 1999: 9), namenja Verč v tem kontekstu pozornost skozi prizmo »resničnosti jezika« in resnice »človeka, ki je deloval z besedo in v besedi« (Verč 20i6c: 78). Potrditev te domneve mi posreduje tudi kolegov razmislek o »realistični stavi na resničnost«. Rekel bi, da Verč tu odkriva dihotomijo med zgodovinsko in umetniško resnico, ko govori o »zanki«, v katero naj bi se ujel Dostojevski v 80. letih prejšnjega stoletja. To naj bi doletelo klasika ruskega romana v času, »ko se je med pisatelji t. i. 'druge proze' (Vjačeslav Pjecuh, Jevgenij Haritonov, Vladimir Sorokin, Ljudmila pamypnbiu 6bim. 21 ALEKSANDER SKAZA ► Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje Petruševska, Jevgenij Popov) začel vnovič obračun z literarno tradicijo«. Verč ugotavlja, da se je tudi v Rusiji v tem času izoblikovalo mišljenje o virtualnosti ubeseditve, ki je primerljivo s poskusi avantgarde in pozneje obdobja postalinske »odjuge«, da bi kritično presegli književne modele, neustrezne potrebam »realnega« sveta. Spori o večji ali manjši »resničnosti« ubeseditve tega obdobja naj bi dopuščali »možnost, da literarna beseda morda sploh nima nič opraviti z resnico 'realnega' sveta«. Te ugotovitve Verč podpre z izjavo Vjačeslava Pjecuha, ki je znameniti začetek romana Zločin in kazen (»V začetku julija, ob nenavadno vročem vremenu, je proti večeru neki mlad človek prišel iz svoje čumnate[...]«) »izločil iz območja 'realnega' ('resničnega')«, ker naj bi se pisatelj »vse to izmislil« (kot pravi Pjecuh). Pjecuhove besede naj bi se pomenljivo v marsičem ujemale z besedami samega Dostojevskega, ki je v epigrafu k romanu Bedni ljudje med drugim zapisal, da »bereš... nehote se zamisliš - in že ti vse mogoče neumnosti silijo v glavo; prav zares bi jim prepovedal pisati« (Verč 2010: 115). Po mnenju Verča tudi ta epigraf, izposojen pri Vladimirju Odojevskem, priča, da je vprašanje »o prehodu med resničnostjo in njeno ubeseditvijo ključnega pomena« (op. rit.: 112). - Navedeno mnenje dopolnjuje poglavje Dva činovnika: Akakij Akakijevič in Makar Devuškin. V njem Verč zastavlja vprašanje »ali je ubeseditev znakovna rezultanta v resničnosti, ali pa je, obratno, pojav v resničnosti znakovna rezultanta ubeseditve« (op. rit.: 105). Odgovor na to vprašanje daje Verčevo opozorilo na upor v romanu Bedni ljudje analitično upodobljenega Devuškina Gogoljevi sintetični upodobitvi Akakija Akakijeviča. Upodobitev činovnika naj bi namreč v Plašču podobno kot v drugih »fizioloških orisih« tistega časa zaprla življenje carskega uradnika v otipljivo posplošujočo referenčnost. Sam upor Devuškina proti taki ubeseditvi, pa naj bi nas pripeljal do zaključka, da »čim bolj je ubeseditev prepričljiva [...], tem bolj se odpira brezno, 22 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications ki domnevno ali zgolj zaželeno resnico o resničnosti ločuje od resnice njene ubeseditve« (op. cit.: 112). S problematiko realizma in zanko »nove besede«, ki naj bi končno povedala resnico o celoti človekovega bivanja, se ukvarja tudi razprava Bedni ljudje Dostojevskega in vprašanje realizma iz leta 2008 (gl. Verč 20i6c). V njej je zapisana misel: K sreči je bil Dostojevski pisatelj, bil je človek, kije deloval z besedo in v besedi in je prav zato nastavljeni zanki znal uiti z zavestjo o mejah in možnostih ubeseditvenega dejanja. Svoji veri v 'celoto' se ni odpovedal, odpovedal se je možnosti, da je jezik to 'celoto' sposoben vračati in se udejanjati kot resnica o njej. Dostojevski ni edini, ki mu ni uspelo odkriti ne 'celote' ne resnice o njej, vendar nam je v zameno odkril odgovornost za ubeseditveno dejanje. To etično dejanje smo od Bahtina dalje (Bahtin 1929) sicer različno poimenovali, njegovo bistvo pa je v naravi same ubeseditve, ki ni resnična zato, ker nam razkriva resnico o stvarnosti, pač pa zato, ker je fenomen jezika tisti edini prostor, ki ga stvarnost ponuja človeku kot možnost, da se lahko v znakih svojega življenja pojavlja kot 'resnica' neponovljive prisotnosti v njej (Verč20i6b: 78). Razprava je bila deloma povzeta v monografiji Razumevanje jezikov književnosti (Verč 2010: 114) in leta 2011 objavljena v ruski inačici pod naslovom PeanusM KaK numepamypa pasnuHua (Verč 2016e). Oznaka Dostojevskega, pisatelja in človeka, navezuje Verč na Bahtinovo teorijo romana iz dvajsetih in tridesetih let in filozofovo etično kategorijo »ne-alibija v bivanju«. V njej prisotna teza o naravi ubeseditve me napeljuje na razpravo Osservazioni sul realismo iz leta 2004,6 v kateri srečamo Verčevi tezi o »naravi ubeseditve« ustrezno kritiko znane Auerbachove knjige Mimesis. Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen Literatur (1946) z nekoliko poenostavljenim razumevanjem termina mimesis, pogojnim sprejetjem avtorjeve teze »z vidika pristopa k 'jezikovno-zgodovinskemu' razvoju književnosti« in zavrnitvijo Auerbachovega izhodišča, »osnovanega na procesu mimesis, ki naj 23 ALEKSANDER SKAZA ► Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje Med njimi naj bi bili tudi taki, ki so podobno kot Frankfurt-ska šola (Adorno, Benjamin) kritizirali Lukacsevo teorijo »odseva« resničnosti (Verč 20i6d: 86; Verč 20i6e: 105). bi se od 'narave' (od zunajliterarne resničnosti) premikal k besedilu«. Tej zavrnitvi se pridružuje kritični odnos do »vseh pristopov k literarnemu realizmu, od Belinskega do Lukacsa, in vseh tistih,7 ki so resničnost kot kategorijo per se postavljali 'pred' njeno ubeseditev« (Verč 2010: 114; gl. tudi Verč 20i6d: 85-86; Verč 20i6e: 105). - Kritika Auer-bacha ob pojmovanju mimesis, omejenem na pomen »posnemanje«, in pristopov k realizmu, ki resničnost postavljajo »pred« njeno ubeseditev, ustreza tudi Verčevi obravnavi (zgodovinskega) realizma z vidika modalnosti 3: jezika življenja. 4 Verčev pristop k tako naravnani obravnavi realizma se prične z ugotovitvijo, da realizem sledi prelomu romantike z obdobji, ko je »jezik resničnost kulturno že strukturiral, zdaj kot fiksirani jezik mita ali religije [modalnost 1: jezik Boga, značilen za rusko srednjeveško religiozno književnost], zdaj kot (normativno) ubeseditev celostne harmonije [modalnost 2: jezik bogov, značilen za obdobje klasicizma]«. Prelom, ki se je dogodil v obdobju romantike, pa je preobrnil, kot ugotavlja Verč, več stoletij ustaljeni odnos med povedanim in resničnostjo: resničnost sveta ni več v danosti jezika, ampak se «osnuje v osebni besedi in se pojavlja z jezikom, ki ga človek o tej resničnosti 'vsakič' na novo proizvaja« (Verč 2010: 84-85). Pri realizmu naj bi ta preobrat privedel do prepričanja, da je sposoben »uvida v resničnost, 'takšno, kakršna je'«. Preobrat, ki ga izvede realizem, pa naj bi z »jezikom življenja« »odprl Pandorino skrinjico neskončnih možnosti opisov in naracij o tej resničnosti; to naj bi povzročilo kar nekaj težav. Realizem je kar naprej vkleščal resničnost v svoj jezik (v »velike zgodbe«) in v razmeroma kratkem času realistične opise dopolnjeval z adicijskimi informacijami. 24 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications Zaradi tega je postopoma v modalnosti »odnosa povedanega do resnič- 8 v 111/ \ Prim. Lotmanovo izja- nosti« kategorija resničnosti plahnela (op. cit.: 89). vo o avtorjevem izboru V1 n n 111 1 sižeja in napaki naiv- A Verč kot vesten historik ne pozablja na dejstva. In tako nam spo- nega realizma (aoTMaH roča, da se je v obdobju realizma »razširila nekdanja jezikovna enovi- 1970: 361362. tost resničnosti in obogatila s prej neznano kategorijo 'razlike'« (Verč op. cit.: 85). Podobno kot avtorju romana Bedni ljudje se po kolegovem mnenju tudi realizmu ni posrečilo opisati realno življenje »takšno, kakršno je«. Sčasoma so se mu razkrile razlike med izbranimi opisi realnosti in s tem tudi prebujeno vedenje, da vpetje sveta v besedo ni nevtralna operacija. V obdobju realizma se je tako sčasoma uveljavila kategorija »razlike« in književnost realizma se je postopoma spreminjala v »književnost razlike«. Ne glede na še vedno prisotno »razsvetljensko« tendenco povedati resnico o svetu in človeku, ki živi v njem, z objektivno besedo, je dobilo veljavo spoznanje, da je ubese-ditev ena od možnih snovanj resničnosti. »Književnost razlike« je tako po Verčevi sodbi zapustila svetu dragocen nauk, da je vsaka ubesedi-tev realnega sveta prav zaradi tega, ker je ubeseditev, tudi možni izbor ubeseditve, a izbor8 ni možen brez nravstvene odgovornosti. V svetu, ki se vedno bolj orientira po upodobljeni realnosti, za razliko od realizma vedno manj diferencirani in vedno bolj nasilni in pojavljajoči se kot zapovrstni edini Tekst, tak nauk najbrž ni odveč, zaključuje Verč (gl. Verč 2016d:92-93; Verč 2016e: 111). 5 Proti koncu 19. stoletja se zgodovinski realizem iztroši. Iluzija o neposrednem odnosu med pojavom in besedo, ki pojav opisuje, se razblini (Verč 2010: 114). V obdobju, ki sledi: »Beseda ni več samo poslušno orodje za ustrezno ubeseditev, opis, posnemanje, neposreden prikaz 25 ALEKSANDER SKAZA ► Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje ali sublimacija obvezne, umišljene, zaželene ali resnične stvarnosti, je stvarnost sama na sebi« (op. cit.: 85). Verč, izhajajoč iz načela literarne evolucije Tinjanova o prehodu iz enega literarnega sistema v drugi literarni sistem v prepletu modalnosti (op. cit.: 87), zapisuje: kopernikovsko revolucijo, ki je to besedo (jezik ubeseditve), postavila pred ali nad predmet ubeseditve, je najbolj ustvarjalno dojel Andrej Beli. O Andreju Belem in njegovem romanu Peterburg, razpravlja v poglavju s pomenljivim naslovom Mimetična resničnost stvarnosti in (ne)mimetična resničnostjezika. V skladu s povedno-stjo naslova je ugotovitev, kako Andrej Beli, ko pripoveduje o nekaterih resničnih dogodkih in družbeno-kulturni reakciji nanje (revolucija 1905, poraz v rusko-japonski vojni 1904-1905 idr.), gleda na vse to po eni strani skozi prizmo že ubesedenih svetov, ki jih odkriva v bogati zakladnici ruske književnosti (Gogolj, Dostojevski, Puškin), po drugi strani pa skozi še neizkoriščeni potencial, ki ga ponuja sam jezik (v prepletu poezije in proze). Beli naj bi premišljeno predelal »ustaljeni vzorec ruskega realističnega romana« in če je realistični roman »gradil svoj potencial resnice na prevladujoči referenčno-denotativni reprezenta-ciji, se pri Belem nič manjši potencial resnice izrisuje kot resničnost jezika«. Tako naj bi se odpirala pot k »ne-mimetični« književnosti - »teža odnosa med povedanim in resničnostjo« naj bi se prevesila na povedano (na jezik ubeseditve) (op. cit.: 126). Spremembe, ki so porodile inovativnost avtorja romana Peterburg, naj bi utrle dve poti, ki bosta zaznamovali nadaljnjo usodo ruske književnosti 20. stoletja. Če nekoliko poenostavim, bi rekel, da Verčeva deloma pesniška predstavitev teh poti nakazuje dva različna odnosa do referenčnosti upovedanega. Razlika med njima pa naj bi bila v tem, da eden sprejema jezik kot sekundarni produkt stvarnosti in je govor o (umišljeni) danosti sveta (mimetičnost) in drugi, sprejema stvarnost, 26 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications ki da se osnuje in utemeljuje v jeziku, in je govor o resničnosti jezika (ne-mimetčnost) (prim. op. cit.: 127). Na poti »danosti resničnega sveta« se je v obdobju sovjetske Rusije uveljavljal »mimetični realizem« v različnih spreminjajočih se variantah. Verč na osnovi poglobljenega poznavanja tega obdobja preudarno ugotavlja, da je še posebej do leta 1953 v modalnosti odnosa med »povedanim« in resničnostjo v pojmovanju govorečega« vlogo »govorečega« prevzemal »uradni adresant«, nosilec Teksta sovjetske kulture. Ta si je lastil pravico, da v spreminjajočih se razmerah »resničnosti« sovjetske Rusije in oficialnega odnosa do njih vsakokrat izoblikuje ustreznost »povedanega« (normativnega »jezika resničnosti oz. življenja«) (op. cit.: 127). - Resničnost se je pojavljala kot danost, »kakršna mora biti« (v skladu z jezikom »največjega človeka vseh časov in narodov«, varianti srednjeveškega »jezika Boga«) (prim. op. cit.: 89). - A kot ugotavlja Verč, je takšna neomajna oblastniška stava na jezikovno določljivost sveta, »kakršen mora biti«, konfliktne narave (prim. op. cit.: 130). Klic po ubeseditvi »zgodovinske resnice« je v manjši ali večji meri vsaj tlel skozi vse sovjetsko obdobje. Verč ta klic zaznava v ruski kulturi od leta 1953, ko naj bi bila »ruska književnost znova poklicana k ubeseditvi sveta, ki 'zares obstaja', ker se zaradi 'neiskrenosti' literarne pripovedi že ubesedene resničnosti o njem izkažejo kot ne- ali polresnične« (op. cit.: 128). Kategorija »neiskrenost« je povzeta iz programskega članka Vladimirja Pomeranceva O iskrenosti v literaturi (1953), ki preporod vloge umetnika, odkrivalca »resnične« resnice sveta, navezuje na status ustvarjalca iz časov klasičnega realizma. V tej zvezi Verč omenja Dudinceva, pisca romana Človek ne živi samo od kruha (1956), in Solženicina, avtorja povesti En dan Ivana Denisoviča (1959). Dudincev naj bi s svojim romanom osnoval »vzporedno resničnost«, ki »'ob' prejšnji (pol)resničnosti prav tako 27 ALEKSANDER SKAZA ► Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje obstaja«. Solženicin pa naj bi s svojo povestjo ubesedoval resničnost, »ki je bila 'nema' vse do [njegove] ubeseditve«. Ti dve oznaki posplošuje misel, da realizem v sovjetskem obdobju »po eni strani 'caplja' za vedno novimi (uradnimi) teksti resničnosti in prilagaja mero njene ubesedljivosti sprotnim 'tekstovnim referenčnostim', po drugi pa ube-seduje še nepoimenovano resničnost in jo obenem osnuje kot novo ['avtentično'] »tekstovno referenčnost«. Navedena misel me vrača k Verčevemu razglabljanju o »zanki« oziroma »poti k vpetosti in ujetosti v jezik življenja'« in rešitvi iz nje. Pozornost vzbudi ob tej vrnitvi izziv, ki vodi k zaključku: če se je klasični ruski realizem rešil iz zanke »samodejne resnice«, ki ga je dušila, tako, da se je prav zaradi svojega neizvedljivega izhodišča udejanjil le kot »književnost 'razlike'« (op. cit.: 129), potem nakazujejo izhod iz mimetičnosti »romani, ki se sprašujejo predvsem o sami reprezentaciji«. Z vidika Verčeve osrednje teze (povzete po Lotmanu), da se kultura manifestira kot tekst, nakazuje skupni imenovalec vseh teh literarnih del ugotovitev: »vsak poskus do-hajanja 'stvari na sebi' je že vnaprej izgubljena bitka, ker se neizbežno konča z zmagoslavjem besede« (op. cit.: 130). Dokaz, da je »tekstovna referenčnost« referenčnost samega jezika, ne pa sveta, [na katerega] se jezik zgolj navezuje« (n. m.), izpeljuje Verč z obravnavo »dvojnega jezika 'resničnosti' Leonida Leonova (op. cit.: 131-132), »ambivaletnosti jezika 'resničnosti'« Borisa Pilnjaka (op. cit.: 132-136) in »jezika jezika kot jezika 'resničnosti'« Andreja Platonova (op. cit.:136-141). Če naj pričujoči zapis ne bo prehudo nabit z najrazličnejšimi detajli in dolgovezen, se moram omejiti in prijateljevo »trdno literarnovedno« analizo jezikov pomembnih romanistov, preskočiti in se zadovoljiti z razmislekom, ki mi ga ponuja sinteza poglavja Bralčevo obzorje pričakovanja (op. cit.: 142-145). Prijatelju pa se moram ponovno opravičiti, ker sem izpustil raziskavo, ki dopolnjuje Verčevo razpravo iz osemdesetih 28 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications let Nekaj izhodišč za analizo poetike rusko-sovjetskega romana dvajsetih let (gl. Verč 20i6h. 311-320), in še posebej pozornost, ki jo posveča sovjetskemu klasiku - Andreju Platonovu9. Dokaz oziroma prestavitev končnega zmagoslavja besede (resničnosti jezika) je izpeljan z predstavitvijo »zgodbe o premiku, ki je v razmeroma kratkem obdobju 20. let prejšnjega stoletja zaznamoval samo-spraševanje o mejah in možnostih modalnega odnosa med povedanim in resničnostjo«. V spreminjajočem se odnosu do stvarnosti naj bi se ta premik dogodil kot »prehod od realističnega jezika resničnosti' k jeziku jezika'« in izkazal kot »dokončni prehod od mimetične k ne-mimetični književnosti«. - Verč ga poskuša ponazoriti na primeru treh prozaikov (Leonova - Piljnjaka - Platonova), ki jih je izbral zato, ker meni, da ti trije »s svojo ubeseditveno izbiro nazorno pripovedujejo zgodbo o premiku, ki je v razmeroma kratkem obdobju 20. let prejšnjega stoletja zaznamoval samospraševanje o mejah in možnostih modalnega odnosa med povedanim in resničnostjo« (Verč 2010. 142). Prehod od mimetične k ne-mimetični književnosti naj bi se začel pri ustvarjalcu romana Tat Leonidu Leonovu. Leonov se sicer ni odpovedal realističnemu »jeziku življenja«, vendar je v treh redakcijah romana Tat do neke mere upošteval realistično »razliko«. - Verč to ponazori s shemo modalnih odnosov. »Leonov 1 [prva verzija romana Tat]. več ubeseditev za eno predmetno otipljivo resničnost« in »Leonov 2 [druga socrealistična verzija romana Tat]. ena ubeseditev za eno predmetno otipljivo resničnost (op. cit.. 142-143). Piljnjak je šel korak dalje. Za pisatelja, ki je meril življenje z umetnostjo« (op. cit.. 133), se stvarnost, ki jo jezik opisuje, »pojavlja Bralca velja opozoriti na Verčevo prvo italijansko izdajo povesti Kotlovan Platonova (Lo Sterro, 1993) in na razprave o tem pisatelju, kot so še posebej analitična razprava Kolhoznoe solnce: alcuni aspetti della metafora nel racconto Vprok di Andrej Platonov iz leta 1989 (Verč 2016a. 237-261) in interpretaciji romana Čevengur - Roman mit in roman o mitu (Verč 2016g. 191-202) ter povesti Temelj/Kotlovan - Utopija prehojene poti (Verč 2016f. 145-166), v katerih vsestransko poetološko obravnavo dopolnjuje tudi social-no-kulturološki vidik. 6 29 ALEKSANDER SKAZA ► Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje kot sočasno prepletanje kulturnih in osebnih jezikov (tudi avtorja samega). Modalne odnose pri Piljnjaku torej zaznamuje ena ubeseditev večpomenske otipljive resničnosti (n. m.). Platonov pa naj bi vnesel v »umetniško zavest o resničnosti, ki se pojavlja kot jezik«, ko je ta v ruski književnosti bila že ustaljena, novo spoznanje: »jezikovni konstrukt resničnosti je do take mere resničen, da določa tudi naše bivanje v svetu realnega«. Krog »naše vpetosti in ujetosti v jezik« naj bi bil tako sklenjen. »Od besede, ki nam [...] lahko vrača zdaj razlike resničnega sveta (Leonov 1), zdaj nedvoumno celovitost sveta (Leonov 2), do besede, ki s svojo »naravno« večsmerno referenčnostjo (ambivalentnostjo) lahko le potrjuje prav tako naravno nedoločljivo celovitost sveta (Piljnjak), je književnost »v prozi« dokončno uvidela potencial besede. Ta potencial besede je spoznal Platonov in s svojim ustvarjanjem nazorno pokazal, kako je beseda »z izhodiščem v mnoštvu svojih morebitnih pomenskih in formalnih možnosti sposobna sama ustvarjati 'ničto' predmetno oprijemljivost resničnosti sveta in nas celo prepričati, da v njeni celovitosti 'zares' živimo« (op. cit.: 142). 7 Verč trdno vztraja pri tezi o »resničnosti jezika«. Zato ob ugotovitvi, da so evropske književnosti in tudi ruska književnost že na začetku 20. stoletja zapuščale mimesis, kritično nastopa proti »uradnim« in »neuradnim« bralcem, ki so prezrli ta premik in še vedno potiskajo književnost v mimesis. In če se je v tudi v Rusiji po letu 1989 pojavila zadržanost do književnosti kot kažipota v resničnost »pravega življenja« (npr. pri odnosu ruske »druge proze« do klasike), naj bi bilo v sedanjosti vse bolj razširjeno ponovno poudarjanje ustaljenega »preroškega« 30 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications bistva književnosti. Tako dojemanje »preroškega« strogemu analitiku ne ustreza, zato meni, da bi »preroškost« književnosti lahko sprejeli ne zato, ker bi nam pripovedovala o resničnosti, česar še ne vemo, temveč zato, »ker se je prva vprašala o mejah in možnostih [...] opredeljevanja resničnosti kot jezikovnega pojavljanja« (op.cit.: 145). -Tako spraševanje je privedlo na koncu dolge poti modalnih procesov [in razmišljanja o njih] »do zavesti o dominantni vlogi jezika, ki je porodila spoznanje, »da živimo samo v svetu znakovne reprezentacije, ki jo je mogoče kot človekov 'produkt' celostno izoblikovati, ravnodušno sprejeti, neravnodušno odklanjati ali razgrajevati v njenih konstitutivnih elementih«. Verč to misel zaključi z enim ponavljajočih se sklepov, ki pravi: »Prav zato, ker je njen [reprezentacije] konstitutivni element znak (jezik), je zgodbo o (ruski) književnosti mogoče ponazoriti z izhodiščem v njem« (op.cit.: 149). Ponazoritev, ki nam jo ponuja Verč srečamo že v prvem delu monografije Razumevanje jezikov književnosti v shemi, ki naj bi predstavila »fabulo ene od možnih zgodb o (ruski) književnosti.« Po tej shemi naj bi modalni procesi v obdobjih od 12. do 13. stoletja (»sveta resničnosti, ki ima že svoj jezik« - modalnost 1, modalnost 2) potekali v smeri »ubesedena resničnost - pojmovanje govorečega - povedano. Modalni procesi v obdobjih 19. in 20. stoletja (obdobja »sveta resničnosti, ki ga jezik osnuje in se v njem utemeljuje« - modalnost 3 in modalnosti 4) pa naj bi ubrali obratno smer: od povedanega k pojmovanju govorečega in ubesedeni resničnosti (op. cit.: 91). -Shema sama na sebi kot abstraktna posplošitev zaključkov bi mi najbrž ostala tuja, če je ne bi spremljalo kolegovo opozorilo na krizo sodobne humanistične misli, ki prizadeva tako literarno umetnost kot literarno vedo/znanost, in na poskus, kako odgovoriti nanjo (na univerzi in zunaj nje). Dovolil si bom, da tehtnost in širino misli o krizi in o odgovoru nanjo neposredno izrazi BESEDA prijatelja samega: 31 ALEKSANDER SKAZA ► Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje 10 Ne vsi: med njimi so npr. moja vrstnika Mihail Gasparov (1935-2005) in Segej Averincev (1937-2004) in mlajši Andrej Rančin. »Danes je sub-jectum postmoderno 'umrl', ker je nedoločljiva postala oblika, ki naj bi ga opredeljevala (jezik). Kriza identitete je 'kriza jezika', ki že po svoji etimologiji (gr. Kpímq) zahteva izbiro [...]. Morda je prvi korak na poti do nje sprejemanje možnosti, da se človekovo bivanje v jeziku vedno pojavlja z avtentičnostjo, za katero ni nujno, dajo vzporejamo z resničnostjo (katero?). Književnost to avtentičnost hrani v sebi: pripoveduje nam zgodbo o govorečem (pišočem) človeku, kije v svojem besednem odnosu do sebe do pojmovane resničnosti vedno avtentičen [...], umetnik je vedno nosilec lastne besede. Kar se spreminja, je odnos, ki ga z njo kot nosilec govornega dejanja vzpostavlja. Če izhaja iz prepričanja, da resničnost že ima svoj jezik, je v svojem odnosu do besede navidezno odsoten, ker njegova beseda že obstaja (v jeziku Boga); če mu jezik resničnosti uhaja in mu zato uhaja tudi odnos do njene ubeseditve, ga ob zavesti o svoji nepopolnosti zakrknjeno išče v zaželeni ustreznosti drugega, že pripravljenega jezika (v jeziku bogov); ko je prepričan, da je resničnost z besedo dokončno 'ujel', je njegov odnos do jezika suveren [...] (v jeziku življenja); ko uvidi, da se resničnost pojavlja kot jezik in je zato odnos do njene ubeseditve zamenljiv z drugim jezikovnim odnosom, odčara začarani krog, v katerem sta se ujela resničnost in beseda (v jeziku jezika)« (op. cit.: 90-91). Zaključke, ki jih posreduje navedena izjava, pripravlja kolega, ko govori (med drugim) o odgovornosti literarne vede in o izobrazbi in kritičnem mišljenju, ki naj bi ju študent pridobil na univerzi (gl. op. cit.: 18-20, 30-33). Če poskušam dojeti srž kolegovega razmisleka o odgovornosti literarne vede, bi rekel, da nas-literate ta razmislek opozarja, kako smo10 odprli 8 32 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications Pandorino skrinjico neskončnih opomenjanj (interpretacij) in potem 11 to skladišče vsakršnih nepredvidljivosti podredili podpori in dokazova- Meje razumevanja 1 , 1 1 i \ i i in Razumevanje(Verč nju zaprtih sistemov (npr. za »pravoslavno« literarno vedo) in konku- 2010: 34-39). renci na tržišču. Pri tem naj bi se literarna veda »pretirano in nekoliko vzvišeno ukvarjala z iskanjem smisla sveta in človekovega življenja [...], vse manj pa z nekoliko skromnejšim opazovanjem ubeseditvenih procesov in mehanizmov, ki sam smisel proizvajajo« - z »opazovanjem preverljivosti samega pojavljanja pojava« (op. cit.: 19-20) v »resničnosti jezika«. - Obramba ruske »trde« literarne šole in njenih tvorcev (od Ti-njanova do Lotmana) ob razmišljanju o izobraževanju in utrjevanju kritičnega mišljenja študentov na univerzi (op. cit.: 30-33), pa priča, kako je Verč zavzet za znanstvenost literarnih raziskav, ki ne ustvarjajo novih smislov, ampak poskušajo iz literarnega dela z manjšo ali večjo verjetnostjo izluščiti smisle, ki v stvaritvi obstajajo, in tako z etično zavzetostjo bogatijo znanje in ohranjajo z razumevanjem »drugega« (avtorja) estetsko celost stvaritve. A če sem ob tem pozoren na kolegovo razmišljanje o nadomestilu »končnosti razlage« z »neskončnostjo razumevanja« (op. cit. 33),11 bi rekel, da ob »tistem manj« konkretnosti filološke analize teksta, kolega upošteva tudi »tisto več« interpretacije (prim. Gasparov 2008, 204-205). »Tisto več« dojema, kot kaže navedek o Hamletu (op. cit.: 35), v smislu Lotmana in njegove ugotovitve, da »nam Shakespearov Hamlet daje več informacij, kot jih je svojim sodobnikom, ker je soodnosen z vsemi naslednjimi zgodovinskimi izkušnjami človeštva« (Lotman 1968: 187). Prijateljevo »tisto manj« konkretnosti filološke analize, a tudi »tisto več« sta tako v pogovoru z njim kot v branju njegovih besedil (ne samo strokovnih) zbujala pri meni nenavadni interes in spoštovanje, kako prizadeto in odgovorno (s samosvojim verčevsko-tržaškim »ne-a-libijem«) biva v besedi in deluje z besedo v prizadevanju razumeti 33 ALEKSANDER SKAZA ► Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje JAZ-TI-ON. Sam sem si to razlagal kot sin Primorke, ki je v mladosti doživela genocid, morala zapustiti rodno Gorico in si potem - kot izgnanka, ko je brala sinu Župančičevega Cicibana, - zastavljati vprašanje: » Ne sme beseda kar naprej svobodna preko vseh ti mej?« V štirih knjigah zbranih del Verčeva navezanost na jezik kot vrednoto in predmet opazovanja zasluži posebno pozornost. To velja še posebej za jezikoslovno naravnane raziskave, ki svojstveno sledijo ruski »trdi« znanosti pri obravnavi funkcij jezika v literarnih tekstih in so nekoliko nenavadne za literarno vedo na Slovenskem. Takšne so: ena njegovih zgodnjih razprav, ki se ukvarja v sklopu analize teksta s prislovom vdrug v naraciji Dostojevskega (1977), izrazito jezikoslovna zasnovana razprava o leksikalnih morfemih v Puškinovem Jevgeniju Onjeginu (2013) in poetološko zastavljena obravnava metafore kolhoznoe solnce v povesti Vprok Andreja Platonova). Spodbudno teoretično dopolnilo navedenim razpravam ponujata obravnava nekaterih zgodovinskih vprašanj o ritmični prozi in še posebej razprava o narativnosti Puškinove pesmi Jaz sem vas ljubil, ki povezuje za Verčeve raziskave značilno (v pričujočem zapisu večkrat nakazano) povezavo estetske in etične problematike. »Tisto več« se izkaže v Verčevih literarno zgodovinskih, primerjalnih in kulturoloških razpravah in esejih, kot so na primer: spremna beseda Utopija prehojene poti k prevodu Draga Bajta romana Morje mladosti in povesti Temelj (Kotlovan) Andraja Platonova, Usoda Dantejevih Nebes v razvojni poti ruskega romana in Aspetti delloltretomba nella cultura russa precristiana. A tudi v teh delih je prisotna »resničnost jezika«, ki se izrazi v Utopiji prehojene poti neposredno v poglavju Temelj in vprašanje jezika; Ta dopolnjuje prestavitev pisateljeve literarne poti, prisotnosti ruske filozofske misli in literarnega modela ruske utopične misli v povesti. 34 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications *** Ker pa »se na svetu nič ne začne in nič ne konča«, kot me je na začetku opozoril prijatelju drag klasik Fjodor Mihajlovič Dostojevski, bi na koncu rad tega stvaritelja »velikih zgodb« rešil »zanke«, v katero naj bi se ujel (po ugotovitvah pisatelja ruske »druge proze« Pjecuha in še koga). Tako bi pomiril sebe in, kot tudi upam, vznemirjenega prijatelja. - Stvaritve »velike proze« (romanov) Dostojevskega in Tolstoja (če omenim samo njiju) so meni in, drznil bi si reči, tudi prijatelju, vrednote, ki bi jih zaradi nekakšnega »brezna«, med »domnevno resnico o resničnosti« in »resnico njene ubeseditve« lahko označevali z varljivo metaforo »zanka« (Verč 2010: 112). Saj tudi prijatelj - v sicer nekoliko neustrezni povezavi (z Bogom in bogovi - modalnosti 1 in 2) - ugotavlja, da »življenju ne moremo ne pripisovati kategorije resničnosti prav zato, ker se v svojem času in prostoru [pojavlja] kot resničnost jezika« (op. cit. 119). Literarna zgodovina in estetika pa razkrivata, da literarno ustvarjanje pozna (če ponovim z ustreznim poudarkom) tudi »drugo resničnost«, ki jo ustvarja fikcija, izhajajoča iz pisateljevih življenjskih izkušenj in spoznanj. In da, ko govorimo o mimesis, ne smemo pozabiti, da za estetiko in tudi literarne ustvarjalce »mimesis ni samo posnemanje, temveč hkrati aktivno ustvarjanje, poezija ali poiesis (noinrnq)«; ali »kot pravi Goethe, »die zweite Natur«: življenje kot ga vidijo umetnikove oči, stvarnost, osvobojena vsega slučajnega in navideznega« (Gantar 1982: 29). Znana literarna zgodovinarka Lidija Ginzburg, učenka Jurija Tinjanova, pa zatrjuje: »Umetnik ustvarja znake, ki utelešajo misel, in njo ni mogoče ločiti od njih, ne da bi jo razdrli« (rumöypr 1999: 99). To trditev dopolnjuje še druga misel Lidije Ginzburg, ki sledi Goetheju: »Tolstoj, Dostojevski in drugi veliki romanopisci so pokazali, kaj lahko postane za duhovno življenje človeštva 'druga resničnost', 35 ALEKSANDER SKAZA ► Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje fiktivna stvaritev genija«. Sam bi navedenim mislim dodal še spoznanje psihologa Vigotskega, ki Goethejevo poudarjanje evangeljskih besed »Na začetku je bila beseda« prestavi na besede Fausta »In Anfang war die Tat« in zaključuje: »Beseda ni bila na začetku. Na začetku je bilo dejanje. Beseda verjetneje oblikuje konec kot začetek razvoja. Beseda je konec, ki krona dejanje« (Bbitotckmm 1996: 361). - Zastavlja se nam kar nekaj izzivalnih vprašanj, tudi v tem je vrednost Verčevih raziskav. In tako bi končal in zapisal, da mi povedano nekako ohranja upanje, da bova s prijateljem Vančkom v letih, ki so morda še pred nama, sproščeno razmišljala tudi o tem, kar prijatelj imenuje »večplastna in večfunkcionalna zmogljivost jezika« (Verč 2010: 154) in o čemer govori tudi BESEDA vsebinsko izjemno bogatega sporočila štirih knjig zbranih del Ivana Verča. V 36 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications Literatura BAHTIN, MIHAIL m., 1999: Umetnost in odgovornost. Estetika in humanistične vede. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis. 7-8. Dostojevski, f. m., 1989: Nova beseda. Zapisi in razmišljanja o (literarni) umetnosti in umetniškem ustvarjanju. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Gantar, kajetan, 1982: Mimesis. Aristoteles, Poetika. Druga, dopolnjena izdaja. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. 26-30. Kmecl, matjaž, 20i6:Jože Koruza, nekaj spominov nanj. Jezik in slovstvo 61/3-4. 7-12. lotman, iu. M.,1968: Lektsii po strukturalnoj poetike. Vvedenie, teoriia stikha. Providence, Rhode Press: Brown University Press. VERČ, IVAN, 1998: »Moja Rusija«. SLOVENIJA - RUSIJA (pogled v preteklost in sedanjost). Ljubljana: Bilten DSR 3. 78-80. [Gl. tudi: Verč 2016m.] verč, Ivan, 2010: Razumevanje jezikov književnosti. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. verč, Ivan, 2016: B,Pyr: L'improviso di Dostoevskij. Verifiche - Preverjanja - npoeepxu. ZTT, EST; Edizioni dell'Universita di Trieste. 1. 5-50. verč, Ivan, 2016a: Kolhoznoe solnce: alcuni aspetti della metafora nel racconto Vprok di Andrej Platonov. Verifiche - Preverjanja -npoeepxu. ZTT, EST; Edizioni dell'Universita di Trieste. 1. 237-261. verč, Ivan, 2016b: KopHeBtie Mop^eMti b Ee^eHuu OHezune A. C. nymKMHa. Verifiche - Preverjanja - npoeepxu. ZTT, EST; Edizioni dell'Universita di Trieste. 1. 299-326. 37 ALEKSANDER SKAZA ► Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje verč, ivan, 20i6c: Bedni ljudje F. M. Dostojevskega in vprašanje realizma. Verifiche - Preverjanja - npoeepxu. ZTT, EST; Edizioni dell'Universita di Trieste. 2. 65-79. verč, ivan, 20i6d: Osservazioni sul realismo. Verifiche -Preverjanja - npoeepxu. ZTT, EST; Edizioni dell'Universita di Trieste. 2. 81-100. verč, ivan, 29i6e: Pea^M3M KaK ^MTepaTypa pa3^MHMa. Verifiche - Preverjanja - npoeepxu. ZTT, EST; Edizioni dell'Universita di Trieste. 2. 101-111. verč, ivan, 20i6f: Utopija prehojene poti. Verifiche - Preverjanja - npoeepKU. ZTT, EST; Edizioni dell'Universita di Trieste. 2 145-166. verč, ivan, 2016g: Roman mit in roman o mitu. Verifiche -Preverjanja - npoeepKU. ZTT, EST; Edizioni dell'Universita di Trieste. 2. 191-202. verč, ivan, 2016h: Nekaj izhodišč za analizo poetike rusko-sovjetskega romana dvajsetih let. Verifiche - Preverjanja -npoeepKU. ZTT, EST; Edizioni dell'Universita di Trieste. 2. 311-320. verč, ivan, 2016i: HeKOTOptie MeTopMHeeKM-TeopeTMHeeKMe Bonpocti puTMunecKOM npo3ti. Verifiche - Preverjanja - npoeepKU. ZTT, EST; Edizioni dell'Universita di Trieste. 3. 7-17. verč, ivan, 2016j: Dialoške prvine Lotmanove strukturalne poetike. Verifiche - Preverjanja - npoeepKU. ZTT, EST; Edizioni dell'Universita di Trieste. 3. 147-164. verč, ivan, 2016k: Subjekt izjave kot predmet raziskovanja zgodovine književnosti. Verifiche - Preverjanja - npoeepKU. ZTT, EST; Edizioni dell'Universita di Trieste. 3. 75-89. verč, ivan, 2016l: Letteratura e carnevale: il carnevale carsico tra Fo e Bachtin. Verifiche - Preverjanja - npoeepKU. ZTT, EST; Edizioni dell'Universita di Trieste. 4. 127-139. 38 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications verč, Ivan, 2016m: «Moa» Poccua. Verifiche - Preverjanja - npoeepxu. ZTT, EST; Edizioni dell'Universita di Trieste. 4. 75-79. verč, ivan, 2018: Ivan Verč, Elektronsko sporočilo 3. marca 2018. baxthh, m. m., 2003: K $u,oco$uu nocTynKa. Co6paHue coHUHeHUU. T. 1. MocKBa: H3,gaTe,BcTBo PyccKue c,oBapu. A3bikm c^aBaHCKOM Ky,BTypBi. 7-68. EOHAPOB, c. r., 1999: 06 OflHOM pa3roBope u BOKpyr Hero. CwMemu pyccKoU numepamypu. MocKBa: #3biku pyccKOM Ky,BTyp. 472-502. BwroTCKHH, a. c., 1996: MBim,eHue u pent. MocKBa: ^a6upuHT. rAcnAPOB, m. a., 2008: Ou,o,orua KaK HpaBcTBeHHocTB. 3anucu u eunucxu. MocKBa: HoBoe ^uTeparypHoe 06o3peHue. 201-205. rHH3Eypr, ^h^hh, 1966: . - WpuU Turnme nucamenb u yueHuU. MocKBa: «Mo,og;aa rBapgua». 86-110. rHH3Eypr, ah^hs, 1999: 0 ncuxonozuuecKoU npose. MocKBa: INTRADA. aotmah, ro. m., 1970: Cmpyxmypa xy^0^ecmeeHH0^0 mexcma. MocKBa: Hg. »HcKyccTBo». nACTEPHAK, eophc, 1990: Eopuc nacmepHax 06ucxyccmee. MocKBa: «HcKyccTBo». 3tkhha, e. r., 1999: «BHympernuUuenoeex» u eHewum peub. Ouepxu ncuxono^muKU pyccxoU numepamypu XVIII-XIX eexoe. MocKBa: «a3biku pyccKon Ky,BTypw». 39 ALEKSANDER SKAZA ► Preverjanje ustvarjenega z mislijo na življenje Aleksander Skaza Aleksander Skaza je upokojeni profesor ruske literature in literarne teorije, ki je do upokojitve deloval na Filozofski fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani. Professor honoris causa Moskovske državne univerze MV. Lomonosova. 40 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications 41 Contributions DOI - 10.13137/2282-5482/28124 KaK nymKHH nona^ B ^epHoea fleppHgw... 06 oahom (noHTH) ^HTepaTypHOM npoH3BegeHHH HeaHa Bepna («coaBTop» - A.C. nymKHH) How Pushkin was reworked Derrida-style ... On a certain (almost) literary work by Ivan Verc (coauthored by A.S. Pushkin) $ roman bobryk - rbobryk@wp.pl SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications Ha nepBtrn B3raag ,e(KOH)cTpy^Mfl HBaHa Bepna flBaaeTCfl npocro myTKOM Ha TeMy 3HaMeHMToro 3 Bac aw6Ma A.C. nymKMHa. O6m;eM3BecTHoe ctm-xoTBopeHMe 6lmo y^e HeogHOKpaTHO npegMeTOM MHTepTeKCTyaflBHMX npueMOB TaKMX ^0^T0B, KaK hocm^ BpOflCKMM, „MMTpMM npMTOB M bmk-Top C0CH0pa. B OT.MHMe OT hmx BepH COXpaHfleT nogiKHHHM TeKCT B nOHTM HeM3MeHHOM BMfle, a iHmB npeBpam;a-eT nymKMHCKMM MOHO.Or .w6oBHMKa b flManor gByx nepcoHa^eM: oh m OHa (aBTop nnmeT po.M m go6aBflfleT pe-MapKu), TpaHC^opMMpya TeM CaMHM AMpMHeCKMM TeKCT B flpaMaTMHeCKOe geMCTBMe. OgHOBpeMeHHO myTOH-Hoe npOM3BegeHMe Bepna MO^eT paccMaTpMBaTBca KaK BBigep^aHHaa b gyxe (nogcKa3BiBaeMoro 3araaBMeM) fleKOHCTpy^MOHM3Ma M OT.MHaM-m;aacfl ot Tpag^MOHHBix cnoco6oB npOHTeHMfl nymKMHCKoro TeKCTa MHTep^peTa^Mfl. nymKHH aaekcahap c., EPOflCKHH HOCH®, flEPPHflA »AK, BEP^ HBAH, flEKOHCTPy^Hfl ,e(KOH)cTpy^Mfl [De(con)struction] by Ivan Verc seems to be an ordinary and yet humorous take on Pushkin's well-known 3 Bac aw6Ma [i Loved You]. This work has already been exploited using intertextual devices by such authors as Iosif Brodsky, Dmitri Prigov and Victor Sosnora. Unlike them, Verc retains Pushkin's text in an almost unaltered form. He does, however, transform it into a dialogue (by dividing it into roles and adding stage directions), thus changing a poem into a play. Verc's work can also be seen as deconstructionist interpretation, which differs from the traditional readings of Pushkin's poem. PUSHKIN ALEXSANDR S., BRODSKY JOSEPH, DERRIDA JACQUES, VERC IVAN, DECONSTRUCTIVISM 45 ROMAN BOBRYK ► KaK nywKUH nona^ b «epHOBa fleppuflbi... CocTaB.aa b 2011 rogy c6opHMK b necTB e^m OapBmo (cm.: 06pa3 2011), a o6pam,a.ca b nepByro onepegB k ero HaynHBiM gpy3BaM - b tom nuc.e m k HBaHy Bepny. HBaH oTK.MKHy.ca Torga He to.bko 3aMenaTe.B-hom cTaTBen (Verč 2011), ho em,e npeg.o»u. bk.mhmtb b ro6u.eM-Hyro KHMry m myToHHBiM TeKCT fl,e(Kon)cmpyKU,ua. - cocraB.eHHBrn MM TpaHc-cKpunT M3BecTHoro crnxoTBopeHMa A.C. nymKMHa 1829 roga HanuHaromeroca c.oBaMM «3 eac nw6un...», kotopbim oh MHorga pa3wrpwBa. Bc.yx b cBo6ogHoe BpeMa pa3HBix KoH^epeHu,uoHHBix BcTpen M KoTopMH (uMeHHo B ^TOM nep^opMaHcHoM Mcno.HeHMu) Bocxum,a. yneHyro ny6.MKy, b tom Huc.e m E^m. OcTpoyMue caMoM ugeu, nyBCTBo roMopa u 3aogHo 3Bynam.ee b HameM naMaTM scrpagHoe ucno.HeHue cpa6oTa.u 6e3oTKa3Ho - He ony6.MKoBaTB fle(Kon)cmpyK-y,uw Bepna b HameM c6opHMKe 6bi.o hcmmc^umo. TenepB ucTopua onuca.a no.o^eHHBm eM Kpyr m B3MBi.a Ha hobhm bmtok. Korga MHe npeg.o»u.u BK.roHMTBca b c6opHMK nocBam,eHHBiM caMoMy HBaHy Bepny, MeHa npocro oceHM.o (no.BcKoe «mam pomysl», c.oBeHcKoe «imam idejo» npo3Byna.o b yMe Ha c.oBau,Ko-HemcKUM MaHep - «mam napad») o6paTMTBca MMeHHo k ^TOMy TeKcTy. H He to.bko noToMy, hto ero aBTopoM aB.aeTca HBaH, ho m noToMy, hto TeKcT m caM no ce6e ucK.roHMTe.BHo MHTepecHBiM m cjokhhm. CTHXOTBOPEHHE nymKHHA CTuxoTBopeHue nymKMHa HanucaHo He no3^e neM b Hoa6pe 1829 roga m BnepBBie HanenaTaHo b a.BMaHaxe «CeBepHBie ^eTBi Ha 1830 rog» (c. 104 - cm. nymKMH 2018). CTuxoTBopeHue, no mhchmk He-KoTopwx ucc.egoBaTe.eM, nocBameHo TorgamHeM Bo3.ro6.eHHHoM ^o^Ta - AHHe A.eKceeBHe AHgpo-O.eHMHoM (1808 - 1888), rpa^MHe ge ^aH^epoH (xoTa TaKaa agpeca^Ma He 6eccnopHa).1 Bot ero TeKcT: 46 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications £ eac nwôun: nwôoeb e^e, ôbtmb Mowem, B dyme Moeu yzacna ne coeceM; Ho nycmb oua eac ôonbme ne mpeeowum; £ ne xony nenanumb eac uuneM. £ eac nwôun 6e3Moneno, 6e3nadeMno, To poôocmbw, mo peeuocmbw moMUM; £ eac nwôun max ucxpeuuo, max ne^no, Kax dau eaM 6oz rwôumou 6umb dpyeuM. (nywxun 1974:191)2 CTMXOTBOpeHMe HB^HeTCH Ha CaMOM ge^e rpyCTHBiM ^0^TMHeCKMM npu3HaHMeM b OgHOBpeMeHHO oho HB^HeTCH m npom,aHueM c ^k6mmom ^eHm,MHOM, n0CK0,nBKy ^upMHecKMM cy6*Bercr ^umB nog-pa3yMeBaeT, hto «^k6obb em,e, 6bitb MO^eT, / B gyme Moen yracna He coBceM» (eenu u «yrac^a He coBceM», to Bce-TaKu «yraena» noHTu ^,nuKOM u ocTa^ucB to^bko ee Ma,neHBKMe «cnegBi»-«ucKopKM»). CuTya^uH npu ^TOM goBO^BHO napagoKca^BHa, n0CK0,nBKy MOMeHT npM3HaHMH3 b k (HeM3BecTHOw) ^eHm,MHe TyT coBnagaeT c mo- MeHTOM koh^ (u^u «Hanana koh^») ^TOM ^k6bu. TeM BpeMeHeM mo^ho 6bmo 6m o^ugaTB, hto TaKOM MOMeHT - Hao6opoT - go^^eH CTaTB HananoM ^k6obhmx oraomeHMM. ^^h onepegHMx pa3MBim,neHMM HaM 6ygeT uHTepecHO o6paTuTB BHuMaHue Ha K0MMyHMKa^M0HHyro cuTya^uK gaHHyro b Mupe ctm-XOTBOpeHuH. BeCB TeKCT CTuXOTBOpeHuH HB^HeTCH MOHO^OrMHeCKMM BMCKa3MBaHueM My^CKoro ^upunecKoro «h» k Heonpege^eHHOMy ^eHCKOMy «bbi». npuneM - xoth 6m b cuny CBoen TeMaTUKu u ^aHpa - mo^ho no^araTB, hto sto «coo6m,eHue» uMeeT hucto ^uhhocthmm, mhtmmhbim xapaKTep4. CM.: U,HB^0BCKaH 1956: 289-292. AHa^M3 CTMXOTBOpe-hmh - cm. HanpuMep: ^O-flKOBCKMM 1979: 1-25. Cm. TO^e 3aMeT-km no 3T0My noBogy b: Jakobson 1989: 233-237. £0 Toro MOMeHTa •nupMHecKMM cyôteœr cbow «co6eceg-HMD,y» «6e3M0^BH0». C^egyeT 3gecB nognepKHyTB, hto no Mpuro M. ^OTMaHy m AHHe Ma^BD, b no-33mm nymKMHCKoro BpeMeHu o6pam,eHMe K «TBI» HB^HeTCH 6o^ee ycnoBHBiM/ K0HBeHD,M0Ha^BHMM m no KpaMHen Mepe nOSTMHeCKMM HeM o6pam,eHMe «bm», ko-Topoe HB-flHeTCH B CBOW OHepegB 6o^ee pea^u-CTMHeCKMM M AUHHBM (cm. Ma-flBD,, ^OTMaH 1972: 5-6; CM. TO^e 3aMenaHMH b: ^OTMaH 1996: 211-221 (c TOHKM 3peHMH 3aHMMaW-m,eiï Hac npo6^e-MaTMKM OCOÔeHHO MHTepecHO npMMe-HaHMe 2 (c. 212)). 47 ROMAN BOBRYK ► KaK nywKUH nona^ b «epHOBa fleppuflbi... ^t. no: BpogcKHH 2007: 121-122 TeKcT gocTyneH HanpHMep Ha caMTe https:// rustih.ru/iosif-brodskij-ya-vas-lyubil/ (pe^HM gocTyna -28.08.2018). AHaflH3 ^TO^O cTHxOTBOpeHHa cm.: ^o.kobckmm 2005 [noflB3yrocB ^.eK-TpOHHMM BapHaHTOM - http://www-bcf.usc. edu/\~alik/rus/ess/ bib52.htm - pe^HM gocTyna 28.08.2018]. ^o^kobckhh ynoMH-HaeT h 60.ee paHHee «nonMTKH ocbomtb nymKHHcKHH o6pa3e^ npeogo.eHHa HecHacT-HOM .k6bm b OTHy^-geHHO^.erHHecKOM naTMCTonHOM aMÖe» B pyccKOH ^O^3HH XX BeKa (oh ynoMH-HaeT HMa EyHHHa). Cm. TO^e 3aMenaHHa b: Fast 2000: 98-100; Szymak-Reiferowa 1998: 158-160. Acho npu 3TOM, HTO Bca cMTyauua coxpaHaeTca, a to m B006m,e ycu^HBaeTca, ec.H ynecTB «.uTepaTypHocTB» SToro BwcKa3WBaHua u $akt, hto oho ab.aetca bbimegmum b nenatu ctuxotbopehuem. tem He MeHee, b TaKOM cnynae KOMMyHMKauua coBepmaeTca onocpego-BaHHO - Me^gy aBTopoM (nymKHHtm) m .uTepaTypHOM nyö.HKOM (nuTaTe^aMu), a «BHyrpeHHaa» KOMMyHUKauHOHHaa cuTyau^a no-.ynaeT cTaTyc poflcTBeHHtm TearpanBHOM nocraHOBKe. hto 3gecB He MeHaeTca, to 3to caMa ^opMa BwcKa3WBaHua - MOHO.or. ÍHTEPATyPHWE «HACflEflHHKH» CTHXOTBOPEHHH nymKHHA CtOMT 3aMeTHT, HTO cTHxOTBOpeHUe nymKHHa BBi3Ba.0 HecKO^B-KO nOSTHHecKUx 0TK.HK0B B TBOpHecTBe pyccKHx n03T0B XX BeKa. no BceM BepoaTHocTH Hau6o.ee u3BecTHWM npuMep TaKoro «ot-K^HKa» sto VI coHeT H3 u,HK.a fl,6adv,amh coHemoe k Mapuu Cmwapm Hocu^a BpoflcKoro: R eac nwöun. Xw6oeh ew,e (bo3momho, umo npocmo 6onh) ceepnum mou mo3zu. Bce pa3nemenoch k uepmy Ha KycKu. R 3acmpenumhcñ npoöoean, ho cnoMHo c opyMueM. H danee: eucxu: e Komopbiû edapumh? nopmuna He dpoMh, ho 3adyMuueocmh. Hepm! Bce He no-nwdcxu! R eac nwöun maK cunhHo, 6e3HadeMHo, KaK daû eaM Eoz dpyzuMu — ho He dacm! Oh, ôydyuu Ha MHozoe zopa3d, He comeopum — no napMeHudy — deaMdu ceû Map e xpoeu, mupoKoKocmHuû xpycm, 48 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications nmoô nnoMÔbi e nacmu nnaeunuch om wawdbi KocHymhca — «6wcm» 3anepKueaw — ycm! 19745 B CBoeM aHa.M3e coHeTa BpogcKoro A.eKcaHgp ^o.kobckmm onpege-.aeT ^TO CTuxoTBopeHue KaK «BW3WBawm,yw nepenu^BKy nymKuH-CKoro «opuruHa.a»». Y^e Ha npeBWM B3r.ag mo^ho 3aMeTuTb, hto TeKCT BpogcKoro coxpaHaeT MOHO.oruHHyro $opMy BtiCKastiBaHua CTMxoTBopeHMa nymKMHa u nymKMHCKyro «Moge.b» KOMMyHMKa-^uu - My^CKoe «a» (.upuHecKuM cy6teKr) o6pam,aeTca k »eHCKOMy «BW». CoxpaHaeTca npu stom u o6m,uM cmmcj peHu .upuHecKoro «a», KOTopwM roBopuT CBoeM co6ecegHun,e o CBoeM HecHacTHOM u rpycTHOM .w6bu k HeM. MeHaeTca b CTuxoTBopeHuu BpogcKoro ^aHpoBaa ^opMa - ec.u nymKuHCKoe CTuxoTBopeHue Boo6m,e paccMaTpuBaTb b »aHpoBwx KaTeropuax, to c.egyeT ero npu3HaTb (KpaTKoM) s.erueM,6 TeM BpeMe-HeM KaK BpogcKuM Bw6upaeT, TaK CKa3aTb, «^aHp» coHeTa.7 MeHaeTca ogHOBpeMeHHO u a3WK BwcKa3WBaHua - KaK 3aMenaeT ^o.kobckum, «nymKuHCKuM c.OBapb ocoBpeMeHuBaeTca u By.brapu3yeTca» (TaM ^e). HHTepecHO npu stom, hto KaK-6ygTO BonpeKu BceM BwmeynoMa-HyTWM u3MeHeHuaM u ga®e BonpeKu u3MeHeHuaM caMoro pyccKoro a3WKa,8 CTuxoBoe «bw» ocTaeTca 6.u3kum «bw» nymKuHCKoro TeKCTa. Y^e caM cnoco6 HTeHua coHeTa BpogcKoro b cocTaB.eHuu co ctu-xoTBopeHueM nymKuHa o6pam,aeT BHuMaHue Ha HeKyro OHeBugHOCTb. b TOM, hto «% eac nwöun...» BpogcKoro aB.aeTca (ynoTpe6.aa onpege.eHue ÄeHeTTa) «.uTepaTypoM bo BTopM CTeneHu». CaMO co-6om pa3yMeeTca, hto coHeT BpogcKoro, noBTopaa (KCTaTu aHa^opuHe-CKyw, T.e. TO^e noBTopaeMyw) nymKuHCKyw <£pa3y «H Bac .ro6u....», 6e3 KaKux-Hu6ygb coMHeHuM paccHuTaH Ha MfleHTM^MKa^MW CBoero 6 06 3.eruMHoCTu nym-KuHCKOrO CTuxOTBOpe-Hua roBopuTca Hanpu-Mep b: n.aTT 2004. üpuHeM, KaK 3aMeHaeT ^o.kobckum, b gaH-HOM c.yHae coHeT nog-BepraeTca 3HaHuTe.b-HOM ge^opMa^MM. Ha Ham B3r.ag «bw» b pyccKOM peHu coBeTCKoro BpeMeHu c.egyeT CHuTaTb npe^ge Bcero o6pa-m;eHueM TunuHHWM g.a napTuMHwx co6paHuM u mutuh-roB, o6pam;eHueM, KoTopoe KaK-6ygTo «oTHy^gaeT» agpe-caHTa, yBe.uHuBaeT gMCTaH^MM Me^gy roBopamuM u agpe-CaHTOM, a C HeKOM tohku 3peHua u ge-ryMaHu3upyeT Toro, k KOMy o6pam;aroTca. 49 ROMAN BOBRYK ► KaK nywKUH nona^ b «epHOBa fleppuflbi.. 9 no.B3yrocB no.B-ckum noHaTMeM «swiadectwo odbioru» [6yKBa.B-HO «CBMgeTe.BCTBo BocnpuaTMa»] Mnxa.a r.oBMHCKo-ro - cm. Gtowinski 1977 (oco6eHHO r.aBa: Swiadectwa i style odbioru - c. 116-137). ,fl,a.ee noHTM ^.mkom noBTopaeTca em;e ogHa CTpoKa ctmxotbo-peHMa nymKHHa (y nymKHHa - «H Bac 6e3Mo.BHo, 6e3Hage^Ho», y Epog-CKoro - «H Bac TaK cm.bho, 6e3Ha-ge^Ho») h (nacTHH-ho) noc.egHaa. runoTeKCTa (no TepMHHaM Tuno.orMM ^eHeTTa - cp. Genette 2014: 11). nocKo^BKy ®e coHeT EpogcKoro paccHMTaH Ha ono3HaHMe cxogcTBa co CTuxoTBopeHueM nymKMHa, to TeM caMUM oh KaK-6ygTo u npoe-^upeyT CBoero HUTaTe.a. Oho npocTo agpecyeTca TaKoMy HUTaTe.ro, kotopbim b cocToaHMM ^TM cxogcTBa y3HaTB. OneBugHo npu ^TOM, hto TaKaa ycTaHoBKa Ha ugeHTM^MKauMro aB.aeTca curHa.oM cbo-eo6pa3Horo «gua.ora» runepTeKCTa c TeKCToM-npegmecTBeHHUKoM m ogHoBpeMeHHo (^o^TMHecKMM) «noKa3are.neM BocnpuaTua (Tuna eocnpmamo, npouumaw»).9 B nepByro onepegB 6pocaeTca b r.a3a, hto c ogHoM ctopohbi EpogcKMM KaK-6ygTo «gono.HaeT» HeKoTopwe ^pa3w nymKMHCKo-ro TeKCTa, c gpyroM ®e - hto CTuxoTBopeHue EpogcKoro (b oT.MHue ot nymKHHa) Hacwm,eHo upoHueM. Moäho TaKoM npueM paccMaTpu-BaTB Me^gy npoHUM u KaK nonwTKy o6Ha^uTB KoHBeHn,uro (nosTUKy) «npegmecTBeHHMKa». C gpyroM ®e tohkm 3peHua, ec.u yHecTB tot npocTMM ^aKT, hto b cogep^aTe.BHoM n.aHe CTuxoTBopeHue EpogcKo-ro bo MHoroM noBTopaeT cmbica nymKUHCKoro TeKCTa, to mo^t 6bitb, ctomt 3agaTBca u BonpocoM, He aB.aeTca .u «BapuaHT» EpogcKoro CBoeo6pa3Htrn nepeBogoM «fl eac nwöun...» Ha a3tiK «coBpeMeHHo-ctm»? b tom, hto caM no3T xoTa 6h b HeKoM CTeneHu nogcKa3w-BaeT u TaKyw uHTep^peTa^uw. ^TO oTHeT.uBo BugHo npe^ge Bcero b caMoM HaHa.e TeKCTa, Korga nepBaa CTpoKa «MCToHHMKa» npuBo-guTca noHTM b ee nog.MHHoM Buge. npaBga, b «BapuaHTe» EpogcKoro MeHaeTca nyHKTyau,ua (y nymKHHa: «H Bac .m6obb em,e»; y EpogcKoro «H Bac .w6u.. ^w6obb em,e») u noc.egHue c.oBa, ho sto hmcto «KocMeTMHecKue» u3MeHeHua, nocKo.BKy ga.Bme BMecTo nym-KMHCKoro «6htb mo^t» aBTop fieadu,amu coHemoe k Mapuu Cmwapm CTaBMT cuHoHUMMHecKoe «bo3mo^ho» (6.arogapa KoTopoMy coxpa-HaeTca b nepBoM CTpoKe Ko.uHecTBo c.oroB «nog.uHHUKa»),10 ga.ee 50 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications »e «nOgMeHaeT» «gymy» (poMaHTunecKUH «H0CUTe.B HyBCTB» m «npueMHMK» 0Kpy»arom,er0 Mupa) «M03raMM» (b kotopom mo»-HO yCMaTpMBaTB COBpeMeHHHM, CBa3aHHbIM C OCHOBaHHHM Ha yMO-3aK.wneHMM BOcnpuHaTueM Mupa BepH c ogHoM CTopoHw KaK-6ygT0 «npu3HaeTca» b pa3pymeHuu 56 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) «- Echoes of Vérifications «nog.MHHMKa», a TeM caMUM m b pa3pymeHuu ero cMtic.a, ho c gpy-roM cTopoHw TeM »e 3ar.aBueM oh noHTu npaMo yKa3BiBaeT Ha cBoe-o6pa3HWM K.ron k pa3ragKe H0B0r0 ^pMH^M^a ocMBic.eHua TeKcTa. Po.b ^T0^0 Knrona ucno.HaeT ynoTpe6.aeMoe b ^>yHKu,Mu 3ar.aBMa c.obo «geK0HcTpyKu,ua», K0Topoe aB.aeTca Ha3BaHueM ogHoro M3 Hau6o.ee u3BecTHBix ^m.oco^ckmx m xygo»ecTBeHHBix HanpaB-seHMM XX BeKa. Hto6bi He norpy»aTBca b T0.K0BaHuu Bcex oco6eH-HocreM geK0HCTpyKTMBM3Ma/geK0HcTpy^MM M cB33aHHWx c ^TMM HanpaB.eHueM pa3Hor.acuM, cKa»eM to.bko, hto b .uTepaTypoBe-geHMM geK0HcTpyKTMBMcTcKaa npaKTUKa cBoguTca Me»gy nponuM k H0B0My npoHTeHuro «KnaccunecKux» TeKcT0B. TaKoe H0B0e «npo-HTeHue» no.ynaeTca Me»gy nponuM u3-3a BK^roneHua b uHTepnpeTa-^Mro hobbix, nacro Heo»ugaHHwx K0HTeKcT0B M.M o6Hapy»MBaHueM b TaK0M TeKcTe HeKux cKpwTwx m paHee He3aMenaBmuxca (ga»e b aBT0pcK0M 3aMwc.e) cmbic.ob. CaM0 »e «o6Hapy»MBaHue» ^TMx cmbic.ob bo3mo»ho npe»ge Bcero nyTeM mmêhho pa3pymeHua Hac-.ouBmuxca b Ky.BType u a3BiKe cTepeoTunoB. y»e Ha nepBBiM B3r.ag M0»H0 3aMeTMTB, HT0 KaK pa3 c TaKMM TMÜ0M 0^^epa^MM MM MMeeM ge.o b c.ynae TeKcTa HBaHa Bepna. CaM0 co6oM pa3yMeeTca npu stom, hto b c.ynae nymKUHcKoro cTuxoTBopeHua crepeoTunHBiM xapaKrep MMeeT m cnoco6 ero HTeHua (ocMBiceHue). TaKoM »e 0HeBugH0cTBro aB.aeTca u moho.ofmhhoctb BBicKa3BiBaHua .upunecKoro cy6iBercra. «nepepa6oTKy» HBaHa Bepna, K0T0paa c HeKoM tohkm 3peHua pa3py-maeT 3tm BceM u3BecrHBie u (Ka3a.ocB 6m) 6eccnopHBie oneBugHocru c.egyeT paccMaTpuBaTB b KaTeropuax 0T0pBaHH0M ot .MTepaTypo-BegnecK0M Tpaguuuu MHTepnpeTauuu. npuneM MHTepnpeTauuu 6.M3K0M geppuguaHcK0My nocTy.aTy «HeT Hunero, KpoMe TeKcTa». BMecTo 3aK.roneHua gocKa»eM em,e, hto gaHHoe BepneM 3ar.aBue fl,e(KOH)cmpyKV,ua. c ogHoM cropoHBi 0Tcw.aeT npaMo k BBicKa3BiBaHuaM 57 ROMAN BOBRYK ► KaK nywKUH nona^ b «epHOBa fleppuflbi... 16 C^egyeT 3gecB gocKa3aTB, hto u xangerrepoBCKafl «gecTpy^ua» u gep-puguaHCRaa «geKoH-CTpy^Mfl» CHUTa^UCB CBOUMU «aBTOpaMU» neM-TO no^o^uTe^B-hwm. Xangerrep roBopuT b Ebimuw u epeMeuu o CBoen «gecTpy^uu», hto: Destrukcja nie ma takze negatywnego sensu strz^sni^cia ontologicznej tradycji. Ma ona raczej wytyczyc tej ostatniej pozytywne mozliwosci, co zawsze oznacza - jej granice, które s^ faktycznie dane wraz z aktualnym stanowiskiem pytania i z zakreslonym przez to stanowisko polem mozliwych badan. [...] Destrukcja nie chce jednak obracac przeszfosci wniwecz; ma ona cel pozytywny, zas jej negatywna funkcja pozostaje niejawna i posrednia. (Heidegger 1994: 32) ^to KacaeTCA eKTa BMcKa3MBaHMfl, a TaK^e M3ynaMTCfl ^pMH^M^M TeKCTono-po^geHMA B naaHe npo3aunecKoro U ^O^TMHeCKO^O A3HKOTBOpneCTBa Ha npMMepax «MepTBMX gym», «Hoca», «OMHeaM», «PeBM3opa». Ochobhom MeTog aHa^M3a - ceMaH-TMHecKaa ^o^TMKa, onMpa^^aacs Ha TeopMM gucKypca. nAPAEA3A, .AHPH^ECKOE OTCTYnflEHHE, METAiOPMECKAfl flHrPECCHa, CEMAHTMECKA3 HHHOBA^Ha, nP03A H ^O^MA, CMEX, CYEMKT flHCKYPCA, ABTO^O^TMECKHE OBPA3OBAHH3 The essay focuses on the problem of text subject, and interprets the text production of prose or verse language in Gogol's DeadSouls,The Government Inspector, The Overcoat. The method of the analysis is concerned with semantic poetics. PARABASIS, LYRIC DIGRESSION, METAPHORIC DIGRESSION, SEMANTIC INNOVATION, PROSE AND POEM, LAUGHTER, THE SUBJECT (AGENT) OF DISCOURSE, AUTOPOIETIC APPROACH AND VIEW 65 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a Ezo npomeedeHua, KaK u ecaKaa eenuKan numepamypa — ^mo QeHOMeH n3bim, a He udeü. B^aguMup Ha60K0B HACTb nEPBAH ^o^Ma B npo3e: MHTepBa^w HappaTUBHoro CTpoa ÄaHpoBoe CBoeo6pa3ue «MepTBBix gym» 3aKnmaeTca b 6u^aTepap-hom opraHu3an,uu TeKCTa, b uHTepaKn,uu HappaTuBHoro u aHappaTuB-Horo ^puH^u^a b co3ugaHuu ^HTepaTypHoro gucKypca. He cnynaMHO BBi3BiBa.no MHO^ecTBa Hegopo3yMeHuM u KpuTunecKux ot3bibob ^T0 yHHKa^bHoe 06pa30BaHue. n0Ka3aTe^bH0, hto Toranb, cnuTan He-u36e^HWM nogoMTu k npo6^eMe c tohku 3peHua ^0^TUKU npo3Bi: «H npegnyBCTBOBa^, hto Bce ^upunecKue OTcryn,neHua b nosMe 6ygyT npuHaTw b npeBpaTHOM CMwc^e [...] BuHOBaTa b ^T0M HenpuBBinKa BCMaTpuBaTbca b nocTpoMKy conuHeHua.» (roro^B i9S6: 242). B «no-CTpoMKe» nucaTe^b o6pam,a^ca k npoMe^ymaM, b KOToptix TeKCT nognuHaeTca tom Moga^bHOCTu, KOTopyro oh Ha3Ba^ «.nupunecKuM OTCTyn^eHueM». B ^Tux M0H0^0rax nucaTe^a rocnogcTByeT gucno-3un.ua tocku, B0n^0m,eHH0M b uHTOHau,uu 33WK0B0M npe3eHTan,uu TeKCTa u BtiCKa3BiBaHua 0 cooTHomeHuu ^o^Mw u npo3Bi b poMaHe. B^aguMup Ha60K0B, roBopa 0 reHuanbHOM ^eHOMeHe a3BiK0TB0p-necTBa roro^a, caMOM opuruHa^BHoM uHHOBau,ueM npu3Ha.n uMeH-HO uHTOHau,uro OTcryn,neHuM. O CBoeM KOMneTeHu,uu nepeBognuKa no 3TOMy noBogy oh nuca^: «He uMew bo3mo^hoctu nepegaTb ux uh-TOHau,uro» (Ha60K0B 20l0: ii2). Ha ypoBHe uHTepBa^OB ocym,ecTB,naeTca a3BiKOBaa npe3eHTau.ua ^0^TMnecK0^0 CMHcaa u ranoca cy6iBercra gucKypca. B uHTOHan,uu 66 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications Bon^om,aeTca o^HKa ^T0^0 cMwcaa («TocKa», «BuguMBm Mupy cMex m He3puMwe, HeBegoMwe eMy cne3ti»). ^Ta cyótercraocrt («.upu-HecKaa» MogaatHocTt roBoparn,ero) o6Hapy»uBaeTca Ha «BBixoge» gucKypca, a He Ha «Bxoge», TaK KaK K0HcTUTyupyeTca 3Ta cy6teKT-hoctb b nuctMeHH0M aKTe 33wkobom caMogeaTeatHocTu nucaTeaa. y roroaa 6u^aTepapH0M: gucKpeTHBin ^pMH^M^ ynpaBaaeT cro^eToc-^o^eHueM m n0BecTB0BaHueM (acneKT Happa^MM), MeTa^opunecKaa gurpeccua — HeTpuBuantHBiMu ceMaHTUHecKUMu uHHoBauuaMM (a3BiK0B0M acneKT).1 npuBegy npuMep u3 TeKcTa «muHeau». ßa^HHe npweMM n0g06H0H a3BIK0TB0p-HecKüH cy6teKTH0-ctm onuca. Bopwc ^HxeH6ayM, M3.araa Teopuro «cKa3a». ARaRMM: ceMaHTUKa npecTpaHHoro uMeHu HuTaTeat, HaBepHo, üomhmt u,eHTpa.BHBiM uHTepBa. noBecTu, a uMeHHo ^po^egypy noucK0B mmêhm ÄKaKua ÄKaKueBuna. ßBi6op uMeHu bo Bcex gpyrux caynaax uMeeT npuHuunuaatHyro 3Hanu-moctb. H KaK pa3 n0T0My, hto uMa nepcoHa^a caegyeT BocnpuHu-MaTB b KanecTBe uHgeKca cmbicaoboto ^0TeH^Ma^a gaHHoro TeKcTa, nopo^geHHoro ceMaHTUHecKUMu cgBuraMu b cTpyKType c.0Ba. mo^ho nponuTaTB uMa repoa noBecTu b KanecTBe pyccKoa3BiH-Horo uHgeKca rpenecKoro c.0Ba — akakhsiox — u ynuTBiBaTt, hto b rpenecK0M .MTepaType sto c.obo aBaaeTca nocroaHHBiM snuTe-T0M repMeca. Ecau nocTynuTt TaKUM 06pa30M, to oTKpoeTca b03-mo^hoctb HeTpuBua.BHoro T0.K0BaHua reHe3uca nepcoHa^a: «... npou3omen ÄKaKUM...» ot cBoero a3HK0Boro gy6.uKaTa: aKaKuü co 3Ha-HeHueM 'yc.y».uBHM', 'noKopHBm', 'go6pHM' u ot snuTeTa b TeKcTe «HauagBi», nocToaHHoro aTpu6yTa repMeca — «noKpoBUTe.a BopoB Ha goporax» u «npoBogHUKa gym yMepmux» b Äug, oTKyga to.bko eMy n03B0.aeTca BepHyTtca b ^pctbo ®mbhx, KaK u reporo roroaa b ^uHa.e noBecTu. y repMeca n030.0neHHBie «6amMaKu», muHeat b Buge «xuT0Ha», Boame6HBiM «^e3a», kotopbim B03Bpam,aeT k äm3hm 67 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a Cp. OpeMgeH6epr l997, loo, lol, l66, i6S. ®wao-co^cKMH acneKT npa-6a3ti ocBemeH c tohkm 3peHMa TeopMM «TpaH-cn.eHgeHTa.BH0M MpOHMM» pOMaHTMKOB B cTaTBe no.a ge MaHa «ÜOHaTMe MpOHMM» (ge MaH, 1996). cnamero m.m yMepmero, nogo6H0 TOMy nepy AKaKua AKaKueBMHa npu pucoBaHMM — O.M^TBOpeHMM — 6yKB-«$aB0pUT0B», K0T0pwe ero HeyMO.MMoe c.y»eHue npeBpamaeT b uHgeKC »mbmx .m^ C.e-gyeT ïïomhmtb, hto b iS3o-e rr. roro.B HMTa. nepBtiM nepeBog «H.m-ag,ti»! H nognepKUBa., hto nepeBogHMKy yga.0CB B0cnpou3BecTu b pyccKOM npe3em^uu «gyx rpenecKoro a3tiKa». Bce 3T0 b n.aHe ceMaHTMHe ckmx MHH0Ba^MM TeKCTa «ffluHe^u» c.y»MT nepeocMwc.eHuro Kope^epeHu,uM roro.eBCKoro noHUMa-Hua: hto 3HaHMT 0T0»gecTB.eHue HeuHgu^epeHTHoro npucyrcTBua b Mupe co cnywenum KaK Ha3HaHeHueM He.0BeKa. CTpaHHte g.a Mupa HMHOBHMKOB nocTynKM AKaKua AKaKueBMHa urparoT po.B Bon.om.e-Hua MCTopuHecKM c.o»MBmeMca ceMaHTMHecKOM m MeTa^opuHecKOM nporpaMMw SToro uMeHu b cro»eTHoe co6wTue. *** npueM npoMe»yTKa xapaKTepu3yeT y»e nocTpoeHue rpeHecKOM KOMeguu; ero noKptiBaeT TepMUH napaöa3a.2 B uHTepBa.e c^HUHe-CKoro geMcTBua BticrynaeT MOHO.or xopa, npe3eHTupyrom,MM cobo aBTopa KOMeguu. Tohho TaK »e pa3BepTtiBaeTca nepBO.MHHtiM paccKa3, o6pam,eHHtiM k HMTaTe.ro, b .upuHecKux 0TCTyn.eHuax roro.a m CBMgeTe.BCTByrom,ux o Kpu3uce KaK »aHpa (caTupuHecKOM xapaKTepo.oruu), TaK m aBTopcKoM ^03M^MM caTupuKa. roro.B Bcerga CHMTa.ca ogHMM m3 caMtx m,eneTM.BHwx aHa.MTu-HecKux xyg0»HMK0B coBpeMeHHOM npo3w. Mh BOBce He co6upaeMca cnopuTB c nogo6HHM B3r.agoM. Heo6xoguM0 ogHaKO sto yTBep»ge-Hue, cnpaBeg.MBoe no OTHomeHuro k HappaTUBHOM $yHKn,MM, paccMa-TpuBaTB b ero .0Ka.BH0M ^hhoctm, He nepeHOca ero aBTOMaTUHecKu b n.0CK0CTB MeTaHappaTMBHOM op^aHM3a^MM TeKCTa. BtcKa3HBaHMa 68 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications noBecTBOBaTe^a He c.egyeT cMemuBaTb c opraHM3au,MeM TeKcTa KaK gucKypca, HanpuMep, c i^arcropaMu ^0^TMHecK0M u.u npo3auHecKoM MaHM^ecTa^MM Bep6a.bHoro MeguyMa, c npoaB^eHuaMu KpeaTUBHO-ctm a3MKa B006m,e u nosTunecKoro a3WKa b Hacraocru. 3to coo6pa»e-Hue cnpaBeg^MBO no OTHomeHuro k .ro6oMy npoM3BegeHMro roro^a, ho oco6eHHo BecoMoe, ^pMH^M^Ma.bHoe 3HaneHue oho npuo6peTaeT, Korga penb ugeT o «MepTBwx gymax», nocKO.bKy 3gecb roronb — ^T0 a nocTaparocb noKa3aTb ga.ee — He to.bko coBepmaeT nepeKnrone-Hua, TpaHcrpeccuro c ypoBHa cro»eTHoro noBecTBOBaHua Ha ypoBeHb Hpe3BwnaMHO KpeaTMBHbix a3WKOBwx aKTOB c.0B0TB0pHecTBa, ho m, b n.aHe TaK Ha3WBaeMwx «.upunecKux OTcrynneHMM», b paMKax KOToporo pea.M3yroTca aBT0^0^TMHecKMe BwcKa3WBaHua cy6ibercra TeKcTa. K TOMy »e npo3auK caM MapKupyeT nyHKTw nepeK^rone-HMa, ogHOBpeMeHHO pacKpwBaa orpoMHWM Kpyr npo6.eM, cBa3aH-hwx c co3gaHueM c.ob, TponoB, yHUKa.bHbix ^uryp nepcoHa»eM, a TaK»e c noHaTueM aBTopcTBa. ec.m Ha ypoBHe penu paccKa3HMKa npoMcxogMT HOBaa npeguKauMa Bwge.eHHOM geTa.u, to .mhhoctb, KOHcTMTyupyrom,aa ce6a e aKme nucbMa, to ecTb cy6teKT .upunecKux OTcTyn.eHMM, Ha3WBaeMWM nucare^eM, gucTaHuupyeT cBoe rHoce-o.orMHecKoe «a» He TO.bKO ot Mupa om,ym,aeMbix pea.MM b n.aHe SMnupunecKu noHaTOM pyccKOM geMcrBUTenbHocTM, ho m ot OTpa»eH-hom penu ^MKTMBHoro HappaTopa-caTupuKa. TaKUM cnoco6oM cy6t-eKT TeKcTa no.ynaeT bo3mo»hoctb pea.M3OBaTb Hag^M^MpMHecKyro nepcneKTMBy, K0T0pyro cTpeMUTca o6ocHOBaTb npu noMom,u aHappa-TMBHOM »aHpOBOM OpraHM3aU,MM TeKcTa ^0^MbI. ^T0My M3MepeHMro b npou3BegeHMu cooTBeTcTByeT o6pa3 «ga.u» b koh^ «goporu», rge KOHHaeTca ropM3OHTa.bHO npe3eHTupyeMWM Mup nycTWHM, cro»eT »e HanpaB.aeTca Ha ocb BepTMKa.bHoro («6ecK0HeHH0r0») M3Mepe-Hua. 6e3 M3MepeHMM npocTpaHcTBa 0Ka3WBaeTca SKBMBa^eHTOM 69 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a 6onBmoro, HexpoHOTonuHecKoro BpeMeHu, b tom Hucne, 6onBmoro BpeMeHu pyccKoro a3WKa, b tom Hucne, ^0^TMHecK0^0. ^0^T0My OHa K0HKpeTM3upyeTca b a3WK0B0M — TpaHœnoxanBHOM — MeguyMe ^o^Mw. ^anB K0HKpeTU3upyeTca Ha ypoBHe BOKanBHOM npe3eHTa-n,uu CMwcna, a mmchho, b 30Be 3ByK0B tockambom necHM. OHa 3ByHUT, BwcTynaa b KaHecTBe uHgeKca CMwcnoBoro n0TeHu.Ma.na ^o^Mw. OHa C00TBeTCTByeT «6ecnpegenBH0M mbicam» —6ecnpegenBH0M, ho em,e He ocMwcneHHoM Happau,MeM: «Hto b HeM, b ^T0M necHe? Hto 30bct, m pwgaeT, m xBaTaeT 3a cepgu,e?» (207). Enarogapa ^T0M TpaHcnuTe-pa^MM HapogHOM necHM b ^o^Me rorona npoucxoguT ocMwcneHue «CBoero nonpum,a», aBTopcKoro Ha3HaHeHua. B ^T0M »e nyHKTe nepeBopoTa K0HKpeTU3upyeTca TaK»e mcto-puHecKMM acneKT Toro TeKCT0C03ugaHua, KOTopwM cny»uT mh-TerpupoBaHuro npeTeKCTOB ïï03mw. Ha ucxogHoM CTaguu ne»uT ucTopuHecKMM momcht, Korga pyccKaa peHB nogHUMaeTca Ha ypoBeHB ^0^TMHecK0^0 a3WKa, to ecTB — b pyccKOM HapogHoM necHe. ^anee pyccKaa nupuHecKaa n033ua TpaHC^opMupyeT MHT0Ha^MW HapogHoM necHM b Mogyc CTuxoTBopHoro a3WKa, KOTopwM — b OTnuHue ot Ha-pogHOM necHM, cocpegoTOHeHHoM Ha nepe»MBaHuu «repouHecKoro» unu «TparuHecKoro», «pagocTHoro» unu «ropecTHoro» npomnoro, — «BcnoMMHaeT», npegB0cxum,aeT 6ygym.ee b Hacroam,eM. HeoTgenuMO ot TaKOM HanpaBneHHOCTM to, hto OHa, ^Ta ^o^3Ma, peKOHCTpyupyeT «Heo6o3puMwe npocTpaHCTBa» He b onTMHecKux Mogenax, onupa-rom,uxca Ha BOcnpuaTue, B006pa»eHue m ^aHTa3uro, a b MeguyMe 3ByHaHua m TOHanBHOCTM BwcKa3WBaHuM. PeHB ugeT 0 cnwmuMwx b MHBOKauuax nucaTena 3arag0HHwx 3ByKax, K0T0pwe b kohtckctc npo3w rorona y»e o6peTawT CMwcnoBoe 3HaHeHue. TaKUM 06pa30M b paMKax napa6a3w npegBem,aeTca MHT0Han.ua HeKoero, em,e He raM-MaTMKanu30BaHH0r0 «BHCKa3HBaHMa». B nnaHe noBecTBOBaTenBHoro 70 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications TeKCTa «yHti.tie» 3ByKM-curHa.ti nogBeprawTca a3WK0B0M u ^ury-paTMBHOM ^pe3eHTa^MM, a b cu.y SToro no.ynaroT CMtic.0Byro koh-KpeTM3an,uw. TaKUM 06pa30M «.upunecKuM» r0.0C-30B Ha K0Hn,e goporu b c^epy 6ecK0HenH0r0 0Ka3tiBaeTca uHgeKCOM .areHTHOM ceMaHTunecKOM nporpaMMw ïïg3mm, a TeMa .uHHoro paccKa3a — noucKOM CBoero c.0Ba. B 3tom CMtic.e mo»ho roBopuTb o tom, hto «.upunecKue 0TCiyn.eHMa» c.y»aT B0cnp0M3BegeHuw M0ga.bH0CTu HapogHOM necHM b paMKax npo3aMHecKoro gucKypca. A b pe3y.bTare B03p0»geHua b no3Me, o6peTawT paHr .MTepaTypHoro »aHpa. Bot noneMy MO.naHue nucaTe.a Ha caMOM ge.e 0Ka3tiBaeTca BecbMa aKTMBHHM m cocpegoToneHBiM ecnymueaHueM b B0Ka.bHtm MeguyM «ga.u». TocKa no 3ByKaM c.y»uT ycraHOBKOM Ha MaHM^ecranuro HOBOM M0ga.bH0CTM, BW3BaHH0M gMC^03M^MeM nucaTe.a. Ha a3WKe roro.eBCKOM ïïG3mh gaHHaa ceMaHTunecKaa Hacwi-meHHOCTb 3ByK0B npu3BaHa nepegaTb cuTyanuro, o6pucoBaHHyro napagurMOM npu3HaK0B, o6o3HaHeHHwx c.0BaMu «rope», «yHMHbe», «»a.o6a», «30B», «otk.mk», «yKop». Ohm HecyTca «no BceMy .u^ 3eM.M pyccKOM OT Mopa go Mopa <...>». BocnpoM3BoguTca b nosMe TOCKa no 3ByKaM (KaK m y nymKUHa) «33wkom cepg^»: «3ByKM stm BbroTca OKO.O Moero cepg^». Ohm c.y»ar npe3em^uu gucno3u-^MM CTpaxa M TOCKM KaK MCTOHHMKOB «T0CK.MB0M neCHM».3 To eCTb nepegaTb He npocTpaHCTBO, a ^^3MCTeH^Ma.bHyro CMTyupoBaHHOCTb — gMC^03M^MW MHguBuga. He.0BeKa, 3aTepaHHoro b 6ecK0HeHH0CTM Heo6o3puMwx npocTopoB — My»MKa .u, 6apuHa .u (Kynep Hmhm-KOBa m caM Hmhmkob), nucare.a .u; ne.0BeKa, g.a KOToporo gaHHoe no.o»eHue npegcTOMT KaK Mup y^acmH0^0 nocmynrn — .uHHoro, He-noBTopuMoro, egunuHoro. KoHenHO, He reorpa^MHecKMM, m.m co-^Ma.bHWM, M.M Ky.bTypHWM npOCTpaHCTBeHHWM 06pa30BaHUeM. Penb ugeT o »M3HeHH0M Mupe nocTynKa, n0p0»geHH0M BHyrpeHHeM AygMTMBHaa MGge.b MHrGHa^MM, BG3-BegeHHGM b nG3Me b KGg npG3aMHecKGrG 33bIKa, — HHrGHa^Ha TGCK.HBGH gMCnG3M-^MM cy6^eKra orcry-n.eHMM, — nG.ynaer BGn.GmeHMe, KaK cG3Hare.bHG pea.M-3yeMaa MHre^Ma, B pGMaHHGM npG3e ,fl,ocToeBCKoro m (KaK ^aKrop .MreparypHGM aHTpono.orMM) cG3ga-er 6a3GByro MGga.b-HGcrb g.a nepcGHa.b-HGrG nGBecrBGBaHMa. Cm. 06 3tgm: KoBan 2005a, a TaK»e KoBan 2005b. AHa.M3 ceMaH-TMHecKGrG acneKTa «3anMCGK cyMacmeg-mero» cm. KoBan i994. 71 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a rMnepóonMHecKaa mg-gent geranu cG3gaer GCHGBy m gna «peanu-crMHecKGrG», m gna «aBaHrapgMcrcKGrG» nogxogoB b MHrepnpe-ranuu npG3M Torona, — ^rM gBa nogxoga onpegenaro- mUMM B MCTGpMM ee M3yHeHMa. (CerogHa — npe»ge Bcero b cpege aMepuKaH-ckmx m HeMen,KMx MccnegGBareneM — mm HaxogMM y»e m ^Mrypy «nocTMG-gepHoro rorona» [Aage Hansen-Löve. Spikker], hg raKue non&iTKM b cymHGcrM aBnarorca npogon»e-HMeM roro, htg genanu ^GpManMcrw.) Twnep-6GnM3an,Ma geraneM gaer reoperuHecKyro 6a3y m gna ocMMcne-HMa npo3&i KaK aHap-parMBHGrG rporecKa, — npMMepaMM raKoro GCMMcneHMa MGryr cny»MTt paÔGTH ^MxeH6ayMa m Tbma-HOBa, cBa3aHHwe C MGp^GnorMHeCKMM aHanM3GM npoM3Be-geHMM. ÛGgGÔHGrG poga reGperMHecKMM nogxog gononHaer m yrny6naer M3Becr-Haa KHMra AHgpea Benoro (cm.: Bea&iM l934). K Mop^onorM-HecKGM MogenM npo3Bi nG3»e goôaBnarorca McropMHecKaa m reHe-TMHecKaa. üocnegHaa Ha MecTO rMnepÔGnw craBMT MM^G^G^rM-HeCKMM CMMBG.M3M, HG He BHGCMT M3Me-HeHMM b MerogMKy aHanM3a; npaBga, geranM GHa peKGH-crpyupyer He b cmh-rarMarMHecKGM, a b ♦ peHtro nepcoHa»a. Mup nuHHoro nocTynKa aKTyanM3MpyeTca b He-ro-poge; ero npocTpaHCTBeHHaa MeTa^opa ecTt ^opora m Hecymaaca no HeM TpoMKa. nepeg hsmm yHMKantHMM noKyc MonHaHua ronocoB «MepTBMx gym» m bhmmshmh k co6cTBeHHoM BHyTpeHHeM peHM — to y HuHUKOBa, to y nucaTena. B eohmmehmm rorona »M3Ht — 3to He npocTO geMCTBUTentHOCTt, a «HacToamaa »M3Ht», cogep»aHue KOTopoM yMH0»eH0 6narogapa caMonoHMMaHuro MHguBuga. TaKMM 06pa30M, b nupuHecKux OTCTynneHuax roront He TontKO Bocnpo-M3BogMT MHT0Ha^Mro HapogHoM necHM, ho m nepeBogMT ee Ha a3MK xyg0»ecTBeHH0M npo3M. CKa3aHHoe Btime no3BonaeT cgenaTt BMBog: $yHKu,ua nupuHe-ckmx OTCTynneHMM M0»eT ótiTt noHaTa KaK TpaHCHappaTUBHMM MeTog, KOTOpMM gononHaeT snunecKoe noBecTBOBaHue nepcoHant-HMM gucKypcoM, peanM3MpyromMM ucTopuro CTaHOBneHua b aBTopa. napa6a3M — npueM OTKnoHeHua ot peHM paccKa3HMKa o nepcoHa»ax m o6pameHua k HUTaTenro — KaK pa3 m geMOHCTpupyroT 3tot guc-Kypc. HuTaTent BTaHyT b Mup, b KOTOpOM CTaHOBUTca CBugeTeneM Toro, KaK paccKa3HMK o6peTaeT cbom a3MK, BtixogamuM 3a npegenti TaK Ha3MBaeMoro «peanucruHecKoro» (b Te BpeMeHa BenuHaeMoro «HaTypanucTMHecKMM») o6pa3a peHM. ^Ta gononHaromaa $yH^ua m o6ycnaBnMBaeT Heo6xogMM0CTt HOBoro »aHpoBoro onpegeneHua: nodMa. KoHCTMTyTMBHyro, gna no3TUKM npoM3BegeHua, pont HOBoro »aHpoBoro o6o3HaHeHua roront CHUTan HacTontKO Ba»H0M, hto bm-Hec ero b 3ar0n0B0K npoM3BegeHua m Ha o6no»Ky KHuru. noBecTBOBaTe^BHan HeHTpa^u3a^uH u ^M^ep6o^M3a^MH geTa^en roroneBCKuM paccKa3HUK, gpo6a npegMeT noBecTBOBaHua Ha 3neMeH-TapHBie cocTaBHMe HacTu, TeM caMMM gecTa6unM3MpyeT ^e.bH0CTb 72 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications MHguBuga u BemeM. npuHeM ge.aeT 3to, ru-nep6o.M3upya geTa.u BHemHux npoaB.eHMM oó^ercra:4 M3B.eKaa K0Mn0HeHT u3 gaHHoM — BuguM0M — Hen0.H0M u,e.BH0CTM m nepeHoca B H0BBiM K0HTeKCT (HanpMMep, HaCTB Te.a M.M npegMeTa m.m oge»gw — b Mup geMcTBua m h3bi-Ka), CTaBMT ux b pag Bce 6o.ee Me.Kux geTa.eM. TaKMM cnoco6oM — Moge.upya 6ecK0HeHH0CTB «nacTMH, ÓBiTua» (nymKMH) — oh yTBep»gaeT paBH0^HH0CTB geTa.u m ^.oro m ga»e B3auM0-3aMeHaeM0CTB ux. Ho, nognepKHy, He b CMBic.e np0Ta»eHH0CTM m.m ^opMBi, a Ha 0CH0Be c.0Bec-hbix m $urypa.BHBix 3HaneHMM, nopo»garom,Mx CMMC.0Byro Moge.B o6teKTa, ero acneKTa m.m K0Mn0HeHTa, o6o3HaneHHoro nocpegcTB0M npo-3auHecKoro a3MKa n0BecTB0BaHua. TaKMM cnoco-6om geTa.M3a^MM m ^M^ep6o.M3a^MM paccKa3HUK He T0.BK0 pa3.araeT Bem,B m.m He.0BeKa Ha nacTM, Ha aneMeHTBi, ho — coeguHaa ux b gucKpeTHMM pag np03auHecK0M ynopagoneHHocTu — TeM ca-MBIM paCKpMBaeT Ux 0C06eHHMM, Hey.0BMMMM BHe Happa^MM cy6,BeKTHBiM CTaTyc: aKmueHyw ponh uacmu b geMcTBuax, c.0Bax m ucTopuu .MTepa-TypHoro nepcoHa»a. B npo3e geTa.B ynacTHBiM, co6btmmhbm K0Mn0HeHT cro»eTa m b to »e BpeMa aTTpu6yT nepcoHa»a. B npo3e roro.a po.B geTa.u npe3eHTupyeTca b n.aHe B3auM006yc.0B.eHH0CTM Tpex $yHK-H.MM, a MMeHHo: np0CTpaHCTBeHH0M, Cro»eTH0M ♦ napagurMaTMHe-CK0M pagy — b npo-crpaHcrBe m b reK-CT0B0M npocrpaHCTBe (TonopoB 1995). CaMBiM 3HaHMre.B-HMM npegcraBMre.B MCr0pMK0-CeMM0-TMHeCK0M M0ge.M — MpuM ^orMaH, K0T0pBiM npocrpaH-crBeHHMe napagurMBi gera.eM pacKpBiBaer He Hepe3 pea.M3anuro ogHoro (a3BiK0B0-ce-MaHrMHecKoro M.M MM^0n03TMHeCK0r0) Koga, a bo B3auMogeM-CTBMM HeCKo.BKMx K0g0B, MCropMHeCKM c.o»MBmuxca m reHe-pupyromux gpyr gpyra (Hanp., b MHTepaKDMM rearpa.BHoro npo-crpaHcrBa, con,M0Ky.B-rypHoro npocrpaHcrBa m reorpa^MHecKoro npocrpaHcrBa, KaK b cMcreMe HepegoBa-HMa KogoB, reHepupy-romux npocrpaHCTBo .MreparypHoro reKcra, Hro paBHo-3HaHH0 cra.KMBaHMro Moge.upyromero B.uaHMa reHepupo-BaHMa npupogHoro, ropogcKoro m xygo»e-crBeHHoro npo-CTpaHCTB c CMCreMaMM mx npaBM. (^0TMaH 1968). üyTB or runep-60.BI go Ky.BrypHoM Moge.M orKpMBaer g.a .MreparypHoro aHa.M3a 6orareMmue, He0D,eHMMBie B03-Mo»Hocru, npe»ge Bcero b 060CH0Ba-HMM gerepoM3an,MM .MreparypHoro repoa, b noHMMaHMM o6pa3a «Ma.eHBKoro He.o-BeKa» M.M nycKaM HaceK0Moro y Ka^KU. OgHaKo, ga»e HecMorpa Ha 3T0, ♦ ♦ nogoÔHHM Merog raK m He npo.M. cBer Ha cy6teKTHBiM craryc co3gaHHoro raKUM 06pa30M H0Boro MHgMBMgyyMa npo3M, Ha n03MD,M0HMp0-BaHHocrB HacrMHH0M cy6craHD,MM, npo-TMB0n0CTaB.eHH0M rora.BHocru, m cy6^-eKra, noHMMaeMoro KaK geare.BHaa HacrB MHgMBMga. O6tacHMTB 3T0 M0»H0 KaK pa3 TeM, HT0 aKn,eHrupo-BaHMe g0MMHaHTH0M po.M HapparuBHoM aHa.MTMKM 3arpygHM-.0 BBiaB.eHMe MeraM rpaHCHapparMBHMx reKcroBMx eguHMO,, po.M «.upuHecKux orcryn.eHMM». To ecTB mm raK m He no.yHM.M ygoB.erBopure.BHoro orBera Ha 0CH0B0n0-.araromuM Bonpoc: noHeMy Bce-raKM 3ror poMaH — no^Ma? PacnpocrpaHeH-HMM orBer, Hro aBrop-ge «norepne. 3gecB 4>MacK0» KaK xygo»HMK, puro-pMK0M «yHMTe.B-CK0M» puropMKM caM pa3pymu. cBoe reHMa.BHoe aHa.uru-HecKoe coopy»eHMe, r0B0pMT He CT0.BK0 o gMCKpegMra^MM roro.a, CK0.BK0 06 MHeprHocru reo-peruHecKoM mmc.m, Hacro o ee Merogo.o-rMHeCK0M yK.0HeHMM or orBera, hto npeg-cKa3a. caM nucare.B (roro.B 1986: 242). 73 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a u ceMaHTuHecKOM. PaccMOTpuM, k npuMepy, noBecTb «Hoc» u6o TeK-CTonopo^geHue b rpoTecKe C03HaTe.bH0 o6Ha»aeT npueMw HeMTpa-.u3au,uu 06teKT0B BOcnpuaTua (o6pa3OB, «BugoB») npu noMO^u noBecTBOBareT.bHOM geTa.usa^uu. B u3BecTHOM paccKa3e Toro.b 3aMeHaeT ^urypy MaMopa KoBa.eBa CHaHa.a ero hocom, 3aTeM — egBa 3aMeTHWM Ha ero Hocy npwm,uKOM, u, HaKOHe^ OTcyTCTBueM Toro u gpyroro: b pe3y.bTaTe TpexcryneH-HaToro (oTpuu,aHue HacTu HacTbro) OTpuu,aHua oh 3aMeHaeT .uu,o nepcoHa^a HeM-TO, uMuTupyrom,uM ho.b, to ecTb nycTWM MecTOM. napa..e.bH0 c 3tom o^epa^ueM Ka»gaa u3 oTpu^eMtix HacTeM — Ka^gaa no OTge.bHOCTu! — o6peTaeT uHguBugya.bHOCTb u HaHuHaeT kutb co6cTBeHHOM »u3Hbro, ho kutb — BMecTO .u^, b Mupe .uh-hwx, caM0CT0aTe.bHwx nocTynKOB. OgHaKO nogo6Haa TeMaTusa^ua npoaB.eHuM geTa.u ocym,ecTB.aeTca He Ha ocHOBe ee 3puMoM-npo-ctpahctbehhom ^opmti, ho ha ochobe cemahtuheckoro notehh.ua-.a ee uMeHu, to ecTb He Hepe3 hoc KaK HacTb Te.a, 0TcyTCTByrorn,yro Ha .u^, ho Hepe3 npeBparn,eHue ee 3HaKa, o6rn,ero Ha3BaHua «hoc», b uMa co6cTBeHHoe: «rocnoguH» Hoc! Pe^epeHTHOCTb HOBoro uMeHu OTCw.aeT y»e He k KaKOMy-TO CBoMcTBy u.u HepTe xapaTepa (Ka-pbepu3M, u.u Bwc0K0Mepue, u.u Ka»ga B.acTu, u.u ceKcya.bHoe B.eHeHue), ho k noBegeHuro HeKoero coBepmarom,ero caM0CT0aTe.b-Hwe nocTynKu, caM0CT0aTe.bH0 nepegBurarom,eroca cym,ero, to ecTb k CB0e06pa3H0M cy6cTaH^uu. npocTpaHCTBeHHoe CKyKOKuBaHue MaMopa KoBa.eBa HaHuHaeTca o6e3o6pa»uBaHueM .un,a, yTparoM Hoca, a BMecre c hum — 3HaKOB Ka-pbepHoro CTaTyca (MyHgup c pacmuTWM 30.0T0M bopothukom, mnara, muHe.b, 6.ecTam,ue nyroBu^i, noroHw): «BMecTO Hoca coBepmeHHO r.agKoe MecTO», «oh yBuge. BMecTO goBO.bHO HegypHoro u yMepeH-Horo Hoca nper.ynoe, poBHoe u r.agKoe MecTO». H BOCK.uKHy.: «Xotb 74 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications 6w y»e HTO-HMÖygB 6m.o BMecTO Hoca, a to HUHero!» (roro.B 1984: 43). Po.b Te.ecHoro, MeHTa.BHoro m cou,Ma.BHoro Ha.MHecTB0BaHua oc-Mwc.aeTca Hepe3 nocpegcTBO ceMaHTMKu — «nycToe MecTO, HUHero». Hoc — noc.e ero MCHe3H0BeHua — noaB.aeTca b ^pkbm, TaM KoBa.eB «BCTpeHaeTca» c hum — m cBimuT: «A caM no ce6e. npuTOM Me»gy HaMM He M0»eT 6bitb HMKaKux TecHtix OTHomeHMM», (TaM »e, 45). Ho 3T0 gpyroe «a», KaK no.araeT roro.B, m ecTB «BHyTpeHHuM He.0BeK», to ecTB cyöteRT, «a caM no ce6e», a He to, HeM a «Ka»ycB» b n.aHe co^anBHtix penpe3eHTa^M, — m nocTynKM ero coBceM MHwe, He Te, KOToptix »geT ot Hero KoBa.eB («Bti go.»Hti 3HaTB CBoe MecTO», TaM »e, 44). ^bokhmk c He.0BeHecKMM .mu,om, roBopa-muM: «A — 3T0 a», — to ecTBgBOMHUK Toro, kto roBopuT: «A tot, kto a ecTB», — HaxoguT «CBoe MecTO» He b genapTaMeHTe, a b u,epKBM, rge MO.MTca 0 CBoeM gyme: «CKa3aBmu sto, hoc OTBepHy.ca m npo-go.»a. MO.MTBca» (TaM »e, 45). Korga K0..e»CKMM aceccop, npuga b pegadura ra3eTw, OTHMMaeT c .uu,a n.aTOK, cTopoHHMM C03epu,a-Te.B BMgMT «MecTO, coBepmeHHO r.agK0e, KaK 6ygT0 6w to.bko hto BwneneHHWM 6.mh» (TaM »e, 50). A n0CK0.BKy 0Tpe3aHHwM hoc 06-Hapy»eH b x.e6e ^Mpw.BHMK0M, He.0BeK0M, KOTopwM «yxa»uBaeT» 3a .MU.0M, to Me»gy »epTBeHHWM x.e6oM m Ky.MHOM, cmmbo.m3m-pywm,MM BOCKpeceHue, HeTpygHO yBugeTB Bon.omeHue ÖMÖ.eHcKoH MeTa^opw («A ecMB x.e6 »m3hm». HoaHH, VI, 35). Hec.ynaMH0 hoc, noaB.arom,MMca b MOMeHT pa3pe3aHua x.e6a, 0TnpaB.aeTca k coöopy Ha B03HeceHCK0M npocneKTe. KaK MW BMgUM, C nOMOmBM gUCKpeTHOM n0BeCTB0BaTe.BH0M geTa.M3au.MM paccKa3HMK y roro.a pacmaTWBaeT — HeMTpa.M3yeT — to MHMMoe (npocTpaHCTBeHHoe) eguHCTBO, KOTopoe npeg.araeT 3peHuro scTeTMHecRMM onwT, to ecTB HeKMM a6co.WT, xygo»ecTBeH-HWM o6pa3 «npeKpacHoro» m.m «6e3o6pa3Horo» He.0BeKa. H TaKUM 75 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a ^epr y rorona — He MoryHMH nagmuM aHren m He xm-rpwiW MCKycurenb, He Me^Mcro^enb M He ^T0 npocro «Me.KMH 6ec», cymecrBo 6e3 cboWctb. ToHHee, y Hero ecrb ogHa-eguHcrBeHHaa nyraromaa nepra: oh Hey3HaBaeM. Ero o6wgeHHyro, 6aHanb-Hyro geM0HMHecKyw B.acrb m B3auM0CBa3b ero 4>opM c Mupo-B033peHueM rorona MCHepnbiBarom;e m nnacruHHo noKa3w-Baer b cBoeW pa6ore «roronb m nepr» Mepe^K0BCKMH (Me- pe^K0BCKMH l905). Cm.: «Pycb! Pycb! Bu^y re6a, M3 Moero nygHoro, npeKpacHoro ganeKa re6a BM^y: 6egH0, pa36pocaH-H0 M HenpMWTHo b re6e, He pa3Bece-nar, He Mcnyraror B3opoB gep3Kue guBa npupogw, BeHnaHHwe gep3KMMM guBaMM MCKyccrBa» (207). H Bor ogHo ^MG^MG-HanbHoe B0CKflMn,aHMe M3 ero ny6flMD,MCTMKM: nucarenb nopa^eH m nogaBneH yHwnwM ogHoo6pa3MeM yBM-geHHoro, 6ecnpuror-Hocrbro npocrpaHcrB «m rpycrHoW necHeW, HecymeWca no BceMy nuny 3eMnu pyccKoW or Mopa go Mopa <...> eMy Ka^erca, nro 6ygro Bce, nro hm ecrb b HeW, or npegMera ogymeBneHHoro go 6e3gymHoro, Bnepuno Ha Hero rna3a CB0M m nero-ro ^ger ♦ 06pa30M npeo6pa3yeT K0Mn0HeHTw screTunecKoW Ka^uMocru smüm-pUHeCK0M peanbH0CTM B ^n0HKU 3a^MKCupoBaHHwx b HappaTUBHoW ^opMe geTaneW; stm ^nonKu, apK0 BwcBenuBaa BHyrpeHHroro 6ecK0-HeHHocTb geTanu, 3acTaBnaroT Hac 0C06eHH0 MHTeHCUBHo omymaTb oTcyTCTBue He to.bko HeBuguMoro ^eno^o, ho m eguHCTBa m Hen0BT0-pMMocTM nuu,a, BnacTb pa3gyToro go geMoHunecKux MacmTa6oB Hmhto — «nomnoro» m «^espasnunHoro». HMeHHo b oTcyTCTBuu npu3HaKa roronb BuguT mctohhmk 3na, Ha3wBaeMoro b ero npoM3BegeHuax «nep-T0M», «caraHoW».5 HeMTpanM3au,Ma, ocymecTBneHHaa nepe3 geTanu3a-^MW, Ha MecTe BuguMwx np0CTpaHCTBeHHwx 3neMeHT0B BCKpwiBaeT HeBuguMoe 3peHuro co6wTue — b stmx TonKax m BCTynaeT b gewcTBue tot MeTog ^mku,mm, K0T0pww mw o6whho Ha3wBaeM «roroneBCKow ^aHTacTMKoW». B «^aHTacrunecKoM» Mupe — 6narogapa HeWTpanu-3a^MM m ^M^ep6onM3a^MM geTaneW, racamux 3HaneHMe gpyr gpyra — «HaTypanbHwe» eguHu^i BuguMoW npocTpaHCTBeHHocTM npeo6-pa3yroTca b MaHM$ecrau,MM cnoco6a npoaBneHua co6wTua, b cro^eTo-o6pa3yrom,Me ^aKropw. B 3tom cro^eTe BbipucoBbiBaeTca numeHHwW BcaKux npecTM^Hwx npM3HaK0B HegocTynHbiW rna3aM «BHyTpeHHuW nenoBeK», HappaTUBHaa Mogenb cy6bercra caMonoHMMaHua. TaKUM nyTeM TpaHcnoHupyeTca ^pocTpaHCTBeHHaa-o^TMHecKaa Mogenb nenoBeKa b nnaH BpeMeHHóW n0cneg0BaTenbH0CTM ero aswiKoBoro — gucKpeTHoro — npucyTCTBua b Mupe: oôbeKm, omyTUMMM gna opra-H0B BocnpuaTua, 3aMeHaeTca ucmopueù 3Toro o6beKra, paccKa3aHHoW b n0BecTBaTenbH0M TeKcre, kotopmm — b KanecTBe aswiKoBoW Mogenu Mupa — cny^MT BwaBneHuro cuucna gaHHoW ucTopuu. TOHa^BHOCTB ^0^M0TB0pHecK0^0 gucKypca B CBeTe CKa3aHHoro CTaH0BUTca noHaTHoW Mwcnb rorona, b cooTBeTCTBMM c K0TopoW numb HeMTpanM3a^Ma, gononHaromaa 76 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications ^M^ep6o^M3a^Mro, cnoco6cTByeT ocmucmhuw omcymcmeua. ^noro. B xygo^ecTBeHHoM npo3e ^T0T MeTog MMeeT oco6oe Ha3HaneHMe: oh cny^MT CTMMy.a^MM pa6oTBi mbICm, no6y^gaa MHTenneKT k 6ó.b-mMM ycM.M3M, k TBopnecTBy, b tom HMcne, a3BiK0B0My. «noHTM y Bcex nucaTeneM, K0T0pBie He numeHBi meopuecmea, ecTb cnoco6HocTb, K0T0pyro a He Ha30By B006pa^eHBeM, cnoco6HocTB npeg-CTaBnaTB npegMeTBi OTcyTcTByromue TaK ^mbo, KaK 6bi ohm 6bi.m npeg HamMMM rna3aMM. Cnoco6HocTB ^Ta geMcTByeT b Hac to.bko Torga, Korga mbi OTganMMca ot npegMeTOB, K0T0pwe onucwBaeM» (roro.B 1996b: 319 — 320). ^Ta noBToparomaaca, KaK pe^peH, mbicab 06 OTganeHuu, 0 gucraH-h,mm o6peTaeT ^opMy b yganeHMM, cnegyromeM 3a rMnep6oflM3au,MeM MenoneM, b o6pa3e roroneBcKoM «ganu»,6 K0T0paa cTaHOBuTca nocro-SHHMM 3.eMeHT0M B TeKcTaX .MpMHecKMX OTcTyn.eHMM, KpMTMHe-ckux craTeM u «Abtopckom ucnoBegu». Toro, hto6bi nepegaTB He to.bko BMgeHMe, 0XBaTBiBarom.ee Bcro «PycB», BenMKOM nepcneK-tmbbi, KOTopaa n03B0.aeT oxBaTMTB B3r.ag0M Bcro pyccKyro 3eM.ro — ot Mopa go Mopa («Tapac Ey.B6a», «O ManopoccMMcKMx necHax») m.m ot .HyHBi go 3eM.M («3anMcKM cyMacmegmero»), ho m HanMH-Hoe 6wTue b HeM. roro.B Bocnpou3BoguT, b paMKax a3BiKa npo3Bi, nupunecKyro nepcneKTUBy .omohocobckom ogBi. npogyMaeM eme pa3 cBa3B Ba®HeHmux pa6oT rorona, 0TH0camuxca k 3T0My Kpyry npo6.eM («B neM ^e HaK0He^ cymecTBO pyccKOM ^o^3uu u b neM ee oco6eHHocTB», a TaK^e «O .MpM3Me Hamux n03T0B»), c n03TMK0M «MepTBBix gym». yxogam,MM KopHaMu b T0Ha.BH0cTB HapogHoM necHu .omohocob-ckmm nupu3M — nupu3M npoponecKuM, oh n0Ka3BiBaeT, cpegcTBaMu cnan,ua.u3an,uu 6o.Bmoro BpeMeHu. ^aneKoe, He^M^upuHecKoe npo-cTpaHcTBO, «Heo6o3puMyro ga.B» 3tot nupu3M xapaKTepu3yeT numB 4 or Hero <...> MHe u goHBiHe Ka^erca ro ^e. £ go cux nop He Mory bbihocmtb rex 3ayHMBHMx, pa3gupa-romux 3ByK0B Hameñ necHu, Koropaa crpeMurca no BceM 6ecnpege.BHMM pyccKHM npocrpaH-cTBaM. 3ByKH 3TH BBrorca oko.o Moero cepgo,a» (roro.B 1986: 243). roro.B 3gecB 0gH03HaHH0 roBopur 0 tom, hto cy6teKr no-3MM po^gaerca rorga, Korga roHanBHocrB HapogHoM necHH cra-HOBurca ^aKropoM ero co6cTBeHHoro a3BiKa, y^e He KaK caMOBBi-pa^eHue «Hapoga», a co6crBeHHMH guc-Kypc nogaBneHHocru u tocku TBopnecKoro cy6teKra xygo^er-BeHHOM np03M. 77 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a 3aMeTHM: c.aBaHCKMM MM^MHeCKMM o6pa3 3eM.M jwmeH r.a3, KaK o6 3TOM cBMge-Te.BCTByeT «Bmm». He noggarom,uMuca pa3yMy KOHTypaMM u pa3MepaMu ee rpaHu^ KaK CBo6ogHoe ot geTa.eM, He3ano.HeHHoe oô'&ercraMu npocrpaH-CTBO, to eCTB KaK OTKptiToe npoCTpaHCTBO rpagym,ux geMcTBuM, em,e He CTaBmee MeCTOM He.OBenecKoro nocrynKa, HanuHHoro 6wtm3. Hm geTa.M, hm Bem,u — to.bko «KOHTypti» u «tohkm» cocTaB.aroT Ha6op KOMnoHeHTOB nepCneKTMBHOM no3TUKu ^OMOHOCOBa. OgHa-KO CaMoe r.aBHoe 3aK.ronaeTca b tom, hto roro.B OTKptiBaeT nepeg HMTaTe.eM He to.bko nepcnercruBti BuguMOM 6ecnpuroTHOCTM, ho m ucTopuro 3perom,ero b HeM rpagyrn,ero c.OBa, KOTopyro B.eneT 3a co6om 3BynaHue — ro.oc 3eM.u.7 ^TOT He BOcnpuHUMaeMtm c.y-xoM, ho no6y^g,arom,MM BcymuBaTBca b Hero «ro.oc» goHOCUT go aB-TopCKoro BOcnpuaTua gucno3Mu,Mro — gucno3Mu,Mro CTpaxa m tockm. Ha ocHOBe HapogHoM necHM ecTB bo3mo^hoctb OTO^gecTBUTB stot 3MnupuHecKM HenocTHKMMHM, ho HecoMHeHHO curHa.M3Mpym,MM ro.oc. 3oBym,MM, npu3biBarom,MM oh craHOBUTca 6.arogapa TOMy, hto TpaHC^opMupyeTca Hepe3 nosTunecKuM crpoM, npucy^uM TeKCTaM pyccKOM .upuHecKOM no33MM, to ecTB o6peTaeT tot cnoco6 6tiTua, KOTopwM 3HaKOM HMTaTe.ro no TBopnecTBy ^oMOHocoBa, ^ep^aBMHa, nymKMHa, ÄepMOHTOBa, HeKpacoBa. npeg.araeMaa g.a HTeHua cpega 3BynaHMa. TeKCT «3ayHMBHMx, pa3gMparom,Mx 3ByKOB HameM necHM», y^e coo6m,aeT stom npora^HoM, s.erunecKoM MHTOHa^MM 3Hane-Hue, to ecTB npeo6pa3yeT ee b oTctMKy, KOTopaa yKa3WBaeT Ha guc-no3uu,uro KaKoro-.u6o — noKa HegocTynHoro u.u HecBepmeHHoro geMcTBua, — 3to ee pe<£epeHn,ua.BHoe oTHomeHue. npocrpaHCTBeH-Hoe eguHCTBO BuguMoro Mupa noHTM HUKaK He MeHaeTca Ha npoTa-®eHMM CTO.eTMM — Bn.OTB go neTpa I, go noaB.eHua .upuHecKOM no33MM. OgHaKO c .Homohocobbim — 6.arogapa ero nosTunecKOMy TBopnecTBy b .upuHecKOM perucTpe pyccKoro a3tiKa HanuHaeTca Btipa6oTKa cmu,uanu3au,uu epeMeHHÓ^o npucymcmem, ero a6co.ro>THo 78 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications opuruHa.bHGM Ky.bTypHGM Moge.u. ^TOMy y»e y caMoro .flOMOHOCOBa cnoco6cTByeT coeguHeHue no^ruKu HapogHoM necHu u 6u6.eMcKoro ctu.h u MeTa^opuKu. MeTa^opwnecKaa ceMaHTUKa fleTanw B CBeTe CKa3aHHoro, BepoaTHO, y»e craHOBuTca oneBugHMM, htg nog-nepKHyTb b cnoco6e BugeHua u b cnoco6e nucbMa roro.a aHa.uTune-CKyro goMuHaHTHGCTb nogpo6HOCTeM — 3roro c MeTogo.GruHecKGM tghku 3peHua HegocTaTOHHo; no KpaMHeM Mepe CTO.b ®e cymecTBeH-HGM HB.aeTca TOHKa 3peHua, uMeromaa b Bugy 6ecKOHeHHOCTb «3G-Bymero» ^.oro u, Ha ero ropu3OHTe, gyxoBHoe 6tiTue — KaK cnoco6 cymecTByromero b npocTpaHCTBe u BpeMeHu H3WKOBoro (^G^TUHe-CKoro, Ky.bTypHoro u caKpa.bHoro) Ha.uHHoro 6wtuh. TeM 6o.ee htg noc.egHee (to ecTb BuguMoe: reorpa^unecKue, eme He 3ano.-HeHHwe «nycTwe npocTpaHCTBa») roro.b CHuTaeT MaHu^ecTa^ueM BpeMeHu. Htg npegno.araeT pea.bHoe cymecTBOBaHue pogHoM 3eM.u, KGTopaa noHuMaeTca OTHrogb He TO.bKO b Mu^o.oruHecKOM u.u C.aBHHG^u.bCKGM CMBIC.e, HO u B CMBIC.e uCTOpuHeCKGM, TO eCTb KaK pyccKaa 3eM.a, «Pycb» 6o.bmoro BpeMeHu (He Pgccuh KaK ro-cygapcTBeHHoe o6pa3OBaHue). npu TaKOM nogxoge BO3HuKaeT bg3-MO»HOCTb o6^HCHuTb MeTa^opunecKoe BOcnpou3BegeHue stgm 3eM.u b KaHecTBe HecymeMca TpoMKu, CBoero poga Kpw.aTOM KO.ecHu^i, KGTopaa geMGHCTpupyeT npeBpameHue 3eM.u b HOcuTe.a gymu, a gymeBHGM geMcTBuTe.bHOCTu — b gyxoBHyro. B xoge Bcex 3tux TpaHC^opMan,uM 6o.bmaa po.b OTBoguTca roro.eBCKuM MeTa^opaM, onuparomuMca Ha B3auMogeMcTBue 3eM.u u gepeBa. Ba»HeMmuM MGMeHTGM 3geCb CTaHGBuTCH TO, HTG pO.u Cy6'&eKTa u Bemu MeHH-roTca MecTaMu: onucaHHtrn b noBecTBOBaHuu o6^eKT (pacKptiToe b geTa.ax npocTpaHCTBo) Hage.aeTCH ^yHKnueM noBecTByromero 79 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a cy6^eKTa. Ka^gwn 3,neMeHT npocTpaHCTBa, npegcraB.narom.ero ny-CT0Ty, o6peTaeT geaTe^tHyro Moga^tHocTt. <...> nemñm eepcmu, nemñm mecmpeny Kyn^i Ha oônynmx ceoux KuôumoK, nemum c oôeux cmopoH nec c meMHUMu cmpoñMu eneû u coceH, monopHbiM cmyKOM u eopoHhuM KpuKOM, nemum ecñ dopoaa Heeecmh Kyda e nponadaw^yw danh <...> (232). nMcaTe^b co3gaeT o6pa3 CTpeMMTe^bHo npoHocam.uxca «Bem,eM» MMeHHo g^a Toro, hto6m cge^aTb HeB03M0^HbiM ycTaH0BuTb pa3^M- HMTe^bHHM npM3HaK Me^fly HMMM, HT06bI geTa^M DTK MM o^HMBa^M He Ha 0CH0Be 06'beMa, 3aHuMaeMoro umu b npocTpaHCTBe, a Ha 0CH0Be ux ray6uhbi, to ecTb b nnaHe TeMnopa^bHocru, ux 0HT0reHe3a u ucT0-punecKoro 6brrua. B 6bicrpoM MenbKaHbe Ka^eTca CTpamHMM to, hto b HeM «He ycneBaeT 03HanuTbca nponagaromuM npegMeT, — T0^bK0 He6o Hag mnoBoro [...]». ga^eBaa nepcneKTuBa, TaKuM 06pa30M, — He6o, oTKyga BHyTpeHHaa CTpyKTypa C03epu,aeMbix npegMeT0B y^e He BugHa, ho 3aT0 oneHb nemo BugHa TeKCTypa Bem,eM, npoaB,naro-rn,aaca b ux B3aMMogeMCTBMM. 3gecb no^ynaeT B03M0»H0CTb npoa-BuTbca 6wTue Bem,eM, T0HHee, ux npucyTCTBue b Mupe He^0BenecK0M geaTe^bHocTu. MaTepua^bHWM K0Mn0HeHT npeBpam,aeTca b «^ubom $aKT», b geMCTByro^yro — geMCTByromyro ga^e BMecTo ne^oBeKa — Be^b, u3 TexHunecKoro cpegcTBa npeBpam,aeTca b 3HaK nocTynKa, b 0TnenaT0K cy6teKTuBHoro Ha^unecTBoBaHua. He b npocTpaHCTBe, a b ®h3hu. ga^eBaa nepcneKTuBa, 0TKpbiBarom,aaca He onTunecKu, a Hepe3 nocpegcTBo nucbMeHHoro gucKypca nosMbi c ero cmmcjobhm noTeHu,ua.noM, npecym,ecTB,naeTca b a3MK0B0M MeguyMe b 0praH0H Tpac^H3yca MaTepua^bHoro b gyxoBHoe, a gyxoBHoro b ^hhoct-Hoe, Bon.nom.aacb b necHe, no33uu, nosMe, npo3e u T.g. nogo6HMM 80 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications »e 06pa30M MCKnronaroTca MHguBugyaflBHBie pa3.MHua, Korga penB 8 ,fl,era.BHbIM MH^ono- MfleT o BHemHOCTM HMHMKOBa: 3™HecKKK aHa.M3 npMHag.e»Mr B.H. TonopoBy («Ano.orMa ^ - - - n^KmKHHa», 1995). B opuHKe cuden ^ocno^uH, He xpacaeeu,, ho u He dypmü HapywHOcmu, hu cnumKOM moncm, hu cnuwxoM m0H0K, Henb3ñ cm3amb, nmo6bi cmap, odHaKo w u He maK nmo6bi cnumKOM Monod (6). CooTBeTCTBywm,MM o6pa3oM HeMTpa^M3a^Ma MMeeT Mecro u b onuca-hmm 6pMHKM HunuKoBa. CyTB 3gecB, no roro.ro, b tom, hto Ha oCHoBe BHemHHx npM3HaRoB — oTHocam,uxca k geTanu m.m k nepcoHa»y b ^.om — HeBo3Mo»Ho cge.aTB bwboa hm oTHocMTe.nBHo cbomctb ne^oBeKa, hm TeM 6o.ee oTHocuTe.BHo ero 6bitmmhom cuTyan,uu. y BuguMMx geTa.eM u y bmammom ^urypw go.»eH 6bitb HeKuM mhom acneKT, kotopbim pacKpwBaeTca to.bko npu ^opMupoBaHuu ga^eBon, BpeMeHHóM nepcnercruBBi, T.e. co6wTMMHoe Bon.om.eHue. ^TOMy cooTBeTcTByeT (noKa eme) «HeBuguMaa ucTopua» HunuKoBa, ee no.HWM cro»eT, o»ugarom,uM cBoeM pea.u3an,uu, u.u, TonHee, noBecTBoBaHue aBTopa, 3aH3Toro H3yHeHueM o6croaTenBcTB co3gaHua 3tom ucTopuu. y aBTopa To»e go.»a 6bitb ceoa. ucmopm: oHa noBegeT ot MoMeHTa BwgeneHua u 3aocrpeHua geTa.eM k co3gaHuro ux ucTopuu, nepexogy ot Happa^MM k »aHpy no3MBi. ^TMM gByM cro»eTaM oTBenaeT MeTa^opa ^oporu, no kotopom «ugyT, B33BmucB 3a pyKu», aBTop u ero repon. ^BuraacB no 3tom 6eccnpege.BHon goporu , ne.no-BeK, Ka^ymuMca «.umeHHWM cbomctb», o6peTaeT cTaTyc cy6iBercra, BwpacTaeT b poMaHHoro repoa, paccKa3HMK »e — b aBTopa no3MBi. no noBogy n^romKMHa: o CMwcae CKynocTu npe»ge neM paccKa3aTB 3Ty ucropuro, roro.B HanpaB.aeT cBoero repoa k n.romKMHy.8 Bo BpeMa BM3MTa n.romKMH npeTepneBaeT 81 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a paguKa^bHyro TpaHc^opMau,uro, K0T0pyro roront ocMwc^uBaeT KaK cuTyau,uro co «CTaptrn» pwgBaHOM. noneMy umêhho k HnromKUHy, BCTpeneM c KOTopwiM 3aBepmaeTca nuKapecKHWM cro^eT — CKynKa «gym» u ux CBegeHue b oguH cnucoK. 3aTeM bo BHyTpeHeM penu nuTarom,ero HunuKOBa HanuHaeTca peBU3ua ^T0^0 cnucKa: Ka^goMy uMeHu yMepmux KpecTbaH oh npucBauBaeT ^urcruBHyro ucTopuro. C^egoBaTe^bHO, npeKpamaa B^uaHue a3BiKa CKynKu Huhukob nepexo-guT Ha a3HK Happa^uu. Toranb Ha npuMepe HnromKUHa npou3BoguT npueM pegyKu,uu: CTa^eHua ne^OBenecKoro aB^eHua go npocTpaH-CTBeHHoro MUHUMyMa. MeTa^opa TaKoro o6pa3a 6wTua — CKyneu,, cuMBO^unecKu BBipa»arom,uM BnycTyro noTpaneHHoe BpeMa. B ko^-^eKH,uu «MepTBwx gym» ero ^urypa, npocTpaHCTBO, 3ano^HeHHoe ero geaTe^bHOCTbro, o6pa3yroT Ty c^epy, rge Bem,u U3 KaTeropuu «MepTBwx» geTa^eM nepexogaT b KaTeropuro «gymu». To ecTb c^e-py, rge roro^b-npo3auK npuocTaHaB^uBaeT geMcTBue noHaTUMHoro ynopagoneHua BuguMwx $opM (geTa.nu3au,uro u runep6o.nu3aH1uro) u co3gaeT bo3mo«hoctb yKa3aHHoro nepeBon.nom.eHua, hto B^eneT 3a C060M, Ha ypoBHe a3WKOBOM KpeaTUBHoCTu, uHTepaKu,uro 3HaKOB ÄHBoro u He^HBoro ^aKTopa geMcTBHTe^bHOCTu: a3WKOM «MepTBwx» oh onucwBaeT Mup «kubhx» u, Hao6opoT, a3WKOM rubwx — Mup MepTBwx. TeM caMWM, KCTaTu roBopa, oh 06H0B^aeT u caM a3WK no-BecTBOBaTe^bHOM npo3w, u «ecT 3tot o6o3HanaeT noHaTueM «no3Ma». y n^romKUHa HeT geTa^bHo paccKa3aHHOM, HeT cro«eToo6pa3y-rorn,eM 6uorpa$uu. OHa 3aBepmeHa go Hana^a cro^eTa npuKnrone-HUM HunuKOBa u ero BU3UTa y n^romKUHa. AHa^u3upya ero äu3hb, roro^b cocpegoToneH He Ha cygt6e, a Ha ^K3ucTeH^ua.^BH0M cuTya-u,uu, Ha 3HaneHuu KOHu,a; b ero noHUMaHuu co6wTue — He «u3hb n^romKUHa, a ^uHan ee, KOHen, CTapocTu — b tom nyHKTe, rge oh b no-C^egHUM MOMeHT CBOUM geMcTBueM, TO eCTB ^UKCUpOBaHUeM UMeH 82 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications yMepmux KpecTBaH Ha 6yMare, TpaHcnopTupyeT «gymu» m «Bernu» B MHoe npocTpaHCTBO, a mmchho b nnaH nucBMeHHoro TeKCTa. B OTnuHue ot nepc0Ha»eM, xapaKTepu3yeMwx onpegeneHueM «MepTBwe», n^MmKMH caM egBa npucyTCTByeT b Mupe, xoTa em,e m He yMep: oh «ceMHac» coBepmaeT mar, KOTopwM nepeHeceT ero M3 Mupa Tex, KTO 3gecB, b Mup Tex, KTO y»e TaM. MonogoM üaMmKHH — ^K0H0M; CTapwM — CKpara. Ero o6pa3 opueHTupoBaH He Ha npu-cyTCTBue b npocTpaHCTBe, a Ha 3HaHeHue mmchm: Ha C0Kpam,arom,ee-ca, ycwixarom.ee cym,ecTB0BaHue. Bce to, hto HaKonneHO ^K0H0MH0M MonogocTBro m geaTenBHoM 3penocTBro, b norpaHUHHoM CMTya^MM «CTapocTM» — b MCKOHHOM TOHKe conpuKOCHOBeHua Hmhto m «BCerO, hto TonBKO ecTB» (ucKOHHoro) — o6peTaeT HOBoe 3HaHeHue. Mup nnromKMHa OTKpwBaeTca rna3aM HuHUKOBa KaK ^pcTBO pacnaga m pa3no»eHua. PaccKa3HUK, npu6eraa k cpegcTBaM npo-CTpaHCTBeHHOM geTaflM3a^MM, 3anonHaa cpe3w 0TKpBiBarom,er0ca Ha npoTa»eHMM goporu npocTpaHCTBa, MogenupyeT ynagoK, pacnag Ha Bcex OHTonoruHecKux ypoBHax. KaKOBWMM aBnaroTca: nec, cag, gepeBHa m goM. B to »e BpeMa, pa3Mem,aa 3tm cpe3w b oguH guc-KpeTHwM pag, paccKa3HUK bhocmt b hmx cro»eTHwM m ucTopuHecKuM acneKT, yKa3WBaa Ha bo3mo»hoctb HeKoero CBoeo6pa3Horo eguHCTBa: 0HT0reHe3 HeopraHUHecKoro, opraHUHecKoro, o6pa6oTaHHoro, 06-pa30BaHH0r0, ynopagoHeHHoro m noTpe6naeMoro cnoco6oB 6wTua. ^T0 — ogHa CMCTeMaTM3an.ua. ^pyraa CMcreMaTM3au,Ma, BpeMeHHáa, HanpaBneHa He Ha CTpyK-Typy nocTpoeK, He Ha goM, 6anK0H, gepeBHro, ycagB6y, KOMHaTy, a Ha Haxogarn,ueca b hmx Bem,u, ot caMwx ManeHBKux n0CKyTK0B 6yMaru m nepwmKa go conHeHHoro nyHa. Bem,u rp0M03gaTca rpygoM b yrny KOMHaTw. H ^T0 — tot hobbim cnoco6 npucyTCTBua, KOTopwM He CMCTeMaTM3up0BaH b npocTpaHCTBe — hm no 3aK0HaM npupogw, 83 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a hm no npuHu,Mny TBopnecTBa. He npegcraBaaa hm «»uBonucHoro 3pe.Mrn,a» (^urypBi), hm «»uBonucHoro 6ecnopagKa» (cBo6ogBi). «^MB0nUCH0CTB» npup0gH0M m CK0HCTpyup0BaHH0M («apxu-TeKTypH0M»), CB060gH0M m CTporoM, paBH0 KaK m 3K0H0MH0M m yno-pag0HeHH0M cpegBi — 3gect Bce b paBHoM Mepe uppeaeBaHTHo. Bo36y»geHHoe BceM stum «ocTpoe BHUMaHue» paccKa3HUKa othocmt-ca y»e k npomaoMy, k «6e3B03BpaTH0M roHocTu». Ero cerogHamHee BHUMaHue HanpaB.eH0 Ha npegcraBaaromyro «yHBiayro KapTMHy», K0rga-T0 »MBonucHyro, a Tenept y»e pacnag,arom,yroca Ha HacTM, pa3.ararom,yroca gencTBUTeatHocTt, K0T0paa, no BceM BuguMocTM, aumeHa KaKoro 6bi to hm 6bi.o geaTeatHoro npucyTCTBua, a n0T0-My m nopagKa. B to BpeMa KaK o6ocTpeHHoe BHUMaHue Mo.ogoro paccKa3HUKa (cor.acHo ero B0cn0MUHaHuro) n03B0.aeT, 0TTa.KUBaact ot CTpo-roro nopagKa b xo3aMcTBe, cgeaaTt BHBog o HeKoeM rocnogcTByro-rn,eM He.0BenecK0M HepTe («CTpacTu»); ero »e b HacToarn,MM M0MeHT xapaKTepu3yeT He ynacTHBrn, «noracmuM B3raag». «yHBiayro KapTMHy» BuguMoro Mupa C03garoT npoeKu,Mu HanpaB.eHHoro Ha no-BepxHocTB, Ha ^opMy B3raaga: Ha caM0M geae, «yHBia»» He cto.bko M3o6pa»aeMHM Mup, cko.bko «yHBiaBiM», paBHogymHHM B3r.ag, ynpaBaaro^MM stmm BocnpuaTueM m u3o6pa»eHueM. TaK CTaHo-BMTca 6peBH0M copuHKa b Hy»0M raa3y. Hec0MHeHH0, 3gect Haau^ Heg0CTaT0K HappaTMBHoro caMoocMHcaeHua. ^T0T ge^M^MT m xoneT npeogo.eTB BBicrynarom,MM b po.u aBTopa, BcnoMUHaro^uM CBoro MoaogocTB paccKa3HMK, — npeogoaeTt Kpu3uc n0BecTB0BaTeatH0M K0M^eTeH^M, nepecM0TpeTt co6cTBeHHyro HappaTMBHyro TexHMKy. ^upunecKue oTCTynaeHua KaK pa3 m geM0HCTpupyroT 3Ty BHyTpeH-Hroro 6opt6y ro.ocoB b n.aHe BHyTpeHHeM penu, K0T0paa BegeTca 3a ^opMupoBaHue HeKoero H0B0r0 cnoco6a nuctMa, — m b KopoTKoe 84 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications BpeMa CTaHOBMTca MHTeHu,ueM .upuHecKux 0TCTyn.eHuM. ^T0T no-CTaB.eHHHM ^.Bro cnoco6 nucBMa npegno.araeT TaKoe TBopHecTBO, TaKyro «KpacoTy», KaKyro <...> He eudyMamb hu npupode, hu ucxyccmey, ho KaK 6ueaem monbKo mozda, K0^^a ohu coedumwmca BMecme; K0^^a no HazpoMowdeHHo-My, nacmo 6e3 monKy, mpydy nenoeeKa npoûdem oKomamenbHUM pe3v,oM ceouM npupoda, oöneznum mawenue Maccu, yHunmowum zpyôo-owyymumenbHyw npaeunbHocmb u Hu^eHCKue npopexu, cKeo3b Komopue npo^na^ueaem HecKpumuû, Hazoû nnaH, u dacm nydHyw mennomy eceMy, nmo co3danocb e xnade pa3MepeHHoû nucmomu u onpamHocmu (loó). Bot noHeMy roro.B BegeT 6puHKy HuHMKOBa k ycagB6e Kpy»HtiM 0K0.BHHM nyTeM. Co3gaBaa CHaHa.a «yHt.yro KapTMHy» gepeBHM, 3aTeM gaBaa 3pe.um,e «oguHaBmeM, 6yMHoM pacTUTe.BH0CTM» 3a OKO-.m^m gepeBHM, o6pa3 «KapTUHHoro 3anycTeHua». TaKMM 06pa30M, npegnpuHMMaTe.BCKoe nyTemecTBue HuHMKOBa BegeT ero m3 npo-CTpaHCTBa «MepTBtx gym», m3 ropoga — Ha paBHMHy, Ha 6o.Bmyro ^opory. Bo.Bmaa ^opora, ogHaKO, y»e He MecTO npocTpaHCTBeHHoro gBM»eHua, ho ^aKTop, pery.Mpyrom.MM sto gBM»eHue, He3aBMCMMHM OT BO.M nepcoHa»a, HeKaa B0.a BHcmero, HeM .ro6aa CTpacTB, nopagKa, npoaB.eHue «HacToam,eM »m3hm». CoBepmuB ^T0T KproK, Hmhmkob nogte3»aeT k «goMy» n.romKUHa, npegcTaB.arom.eMy «nenanbHoe» 3pe.um,e. noc.e HeMTpa.M3an.MM ^opM »MBonucHoro nopagKa m »m-BonMCHoro 6ecnopagKa roro.ro npuxoguTca C03gaTB m ^opMy «tockm», HacTurarom,eM m caMoro paccKa3HMKa. ^MByro KapTMHy tockm Bon.o-m,aeT gyma, b Hau6o.BmeM CTeneHM Ka»ymaaca «MepTBoM», Hau6o.ee cte»MBmaaca 3K3MCTeHn,Ma, CKpara, caMO ce6a ctegaromee 6oraTCTB0. 85 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a He xBaTaeT TyT hu BUTa.bH0M »uboctu .eca, hu o6pa3a gepeBHu, B KGTopoM rocnogcTByeT CTporuM nopagoK. C tghku 3peHua CTapuKa n.romKUHa, tg u gpyroe «cte^M^ocb», tg u gpyroe — .umb 6.eg-Hoe npoaB.eHue Teparomuxca b npom.OM geMcTBuM. npeBpameHue nopagKa BemeM b rpygy 6ecnG.e3HGrG x.aMa o6pa3yeT npocrpaH-CTBeHHyro cxeMy npor.agwBarom.eM 3a 3pe.Mm,eM KOMHaTw ucTopuu. TaKGB, HanpuMep, c.eg «caBHOM», hg gaBHO y»e yMepmeM »eHw, o KGTopoM HaM He y3HaTb nparcrunecKu Hunero, 3a ucKnroneHueM, MG»eT 6wTb, ogHGM ge.a.u: OHa 6w.a «k.mhhu^m» b 3tgm ycagb-6e. B Kyne x.aMa cynpyry n.romKUHa 3aMeHaeT rpa^uHHUK c «.u-KepnuKGM»: «Eme noKGMHUH,a ge.a.a», — npGgG.»a. n.romKUH: «MomeHHu^-KnroHHu^ coBceM 6w.o ero 3a6pocu.a u ga»e He 3a-Kynopu.a, KaHa.ba!» (ii7). OgHaKO b pe3y.bTaTe MeTa^opunecKoro nepeocMwc.eHua ^Ta ge-Ta.b TaK»e ocBemaeTca nG-HGBGMy, u rpa^uHHUK, KaK u Bce nponue npegMeTw b Kyne x.aMa, o6peTaeT CTaTyc ogHoro U3 caMwx gparon,eH-Hwx coKpoBum, cpegu HaKon.eHHwx «6oraTCTB». KnmHUK, kjkhhh-^ — xpaHUTeab(Hu^) coKpoBum,Hu^i, to ecTb «K.aga»; b pyccKOM a3WKe b c.GBe «K.agoBaa» c.wmuTca KopeHb «K.ag», tg ecTb 3aK0-naHHwe r.y60K0 b 3eM.e u.u uhwm 06pa30M cnpaTaHHwe gparo-u,eHH0CTu; KaK MeTa^opa »e «K.ag» M0»eT BticrynaTb cumbg.gm gymu, 0C06eHH0 b xpucTuaHCKGM BOcnpuaTuu, rge gh npegcTaB.a-eT <^apcTB0 Bo»ue», u ne^GBenecKoe «cepg^», — TaKoe T0.K0Ba-Hue TeM 6o.ee M0»eT uMeTb nog co6oM ocHOBaHue, htg co6paHHwM u o6eperaeMWM naromxuHHM «TaMHwM Knag» BCTaeT nepeg HaMu yHUKa.bHGM MeTa^opoM «MepTBwx gym». Begb gyma b ^TGM tg.kg-BaHuu — 6eccMepTHa. noc.e npeKpameHua 6u0fl0ruHecK0M »u3hu gyma — roBopa uHGCKa3aTe.bH0 — HaxoguTca b gpyroM MecTe. Ha-npuMep, b KyBmuHe (rpa^uHHUKe). noMemeHHaa b HeM u peBHUBO 86 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications o6eperaeMaa ^ugKocrB — He to^bko npogyKT geaTeflBHocrM pa-HMTe^BHOM x03aMKM, HO M Cn0C06 nOCWCTOpOHHerO npMCyTCTBMa «n0K0MHM^i» nocne kohhmhbi. noTOMy u npoucxoguT cnegyrom.ee: njMmKHH, xOTa M eo6Mpa^ea yrOCTMTB HMHMKOBa «^MKepHMKOM», ho hbho o6pagoBa.nca, Korga rocTB otk^ohm^ yrom,eHue: «^MKepHMK» mo^ho 6bMo u gaatme xpaHUTB b ^T0M CTpaHHOM coKpoBum,HM^. .fl^a n^BmKHHa, BBicTynarom,ero b po^u KjMHHMKa, Bce gpy-rue -nrogu — «6e3ge.nBHMKM», to ecTB noTpe6uTe^u, a n0T0My ohm 3aBeg0M0 o6peneHw Ha He geaTe^BHoe cym,ecrB0BaHMe («ga BegB ohm Bce BopumKM», 117). H ^T0 OTHocuTca He to^bko k gBopHe: croga oh npMHuc^aeT m rocreM, m B006m,e Bcex; ucKnroHeHue ge^aeT to^bko g^a HunuKOBa. «nunu ywe u enu» — cm3an nnwwKun. «fia, KOHeuHo, xopomezo 06- ^ecmea uenoeem xomb zde y3naewb: oh u He ecm, a cum; a KaK ^^aK0ü KüK0ü-nu6ydb eopurnxa, da ezo cKonbKo hu KopMu...» (117). Ho nocKOflBKy «6e3ge^BHMK» — g^a Hero cmhohmm «BopumKM», to ega m nuTBe b ero raa3ax BBiraagaT tskmm 3aHaTueM, KOTopoe paBH03HanH0 nycTOMy BpeManpenp0B0»geHMro; oh BuguT TyT Ta-Kyro Moge^B »m3hm, K0T0paa no^upaeT caMoe ce6a, 6eccMBicneHH0 pacTpanuBaa ^M3HeHH0e BpeMa. ygoB,neTBopeHMe hmcto 6uo^oruHe-ckom n0Tpe6H0cTM BegeT aumB k npocTpaHcTBeHHOMy yMHO^eHuro nnoTM u k coKpa^eHuro »M3HeHHoro BpeMeHM. A^BTepHaTMBHoe geMcTBue — c0Kpam,eHue npocrpaHcTBeHHoro cym,ecTB0BaHMa: BegB BopumKa o6KpagwBaeT gpyroro, Torga KaK cKynoM — caMoro ce6a. n03T0My naremKMH b 6bithoctb cBoro panMTe^BHWM x03auH0M u Mor HanoMMHaTB nayKa, caMKa KOToporo (y HeKOTopwx BugoB) nocne cna-puBaHua no^upaeT caM^. «OguHOKaa »m3hb ga^a cwTHyro numy 87 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a CKyn0CTM, KOTopaa, KaK M3BecTHO, MMeeT bo,hmm ro,og m HeM 6o,ee no»upaeT, TeM cTaHOBMTca HeHactiTHee...» (iii). Hto »e KacaeTca crapuKa n,romKMHa, to roro^b, MMea b Bugy 6erarom,ue r,a3a ^urypti, cpaBHMBaeT ero c Mtimbro, TeM caMtiM o6o3Hanaa b HeM TaKoe KanecTBo, KaK Hanpa»eHHoe, TpeBo»Hoe BHMMaHue. Ho xog BpeMeHM b HappaTUBHOM npoeKu,MM npuBoguT nayKa-ogMHOHecTBo ko Bce 6o,ee MHTeHCMBHOMy noTpe6,eHMro m TeM caMtiM co3gaeT CBoero poga go6aBOHHwM cmbic,: npocTpaHCTBeHHoe C0Kpam,eHue, «CBe»MBaHue» »m3hm c0np0B0»gaeTca pa36yxaHueM »M3HeHHoro BpeMeHM, coKpa^eHMe, yctixaHMe ogMHonecTBa npaMO nponopuMOHa^bHO HMC,y Kyn,eHHtix gym. y ÏÏjromKMHa — 6o,b-me Bcero TaKMx gym, CBegeHHtix ,umb k gyx0BH0My npucyTCTBMro: oh «<...> Bcex mx cnuca, Ha oco6yro 6yMa»Ky». CnucoK ^T0T, BMecre c noMeTKaMM n,romKMHa, Hmhmkob nepeHOCMT b Kynnyro KpenocTb. Ho no3»e, Korga oh nepeHMTtiBaeT 6yMary, m noMe^MKM, KOToptie nepega,M eMy ^TM mmêhs, TaK m nepenuceHHwe My»MKM aB,aroTca nepeg hmm b hobom CBeTe, nog yr,OM Mogyca aKTUBHoro npucyrcTBua, m CBa3aHHwe c MMeHaMM noMeTKM no,ynaroT BTopMHHyro, pe^epeH-u,Ma,bHyro 4>yHKu,Mro. «Korga B3r,aHy, oh noTOM Ha ^TM ,mctmkm, Ha My»MKOB, koto-ptie, tohho, 6bi,m Korga-To My»MKaMM <...>, KaK0e-T0 CTpaHHoe, HenoHaTHoe eMy caMOMy HyBCTBO 0B,age,0 mm. Ka»gaa m3 3anuco-neK KaK 6ygT0 MMe,a KaKoM-To oco6eHHwM xapaKTep, m Hpe3 to KaK 6ygTO 6bi caMtie My»MKM no,yna,M cbom co6cTBeHHwM xapaKTep. <...> hm ogHO M3 noxBa,bHwx KanecTB My»MKa He 6bi,0 nponyrn,e-HO <...>» (i26). Pa3Mwm,aa Hag MMeHaMM m CBa3aHHtiMM c hmmm geTanaMu (Hag hobom mx pe^epeHTHOCTbro), Hmhmkob MeHaeT CBoro gucno-3Mu,Mro: Mgero npegnpMHMMaTe,bCKoro MHTepeca BtrrecHaeT HOBaa 88 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications 3auHTepecGBHHGCTb, MHTeH^MH He.GBeHecKoro uHTepeca; ho uHTe-pec 3TOT gthgcutch y»e He k «MepTBtiM gymaM»: oh npo6y»geH geMCTBUHMu, KOToptie Hano.HaroT »u3Hb ^Tux «gym». 3a uMeHaMu Tenepb BCTaeT He «KO.uHecTBO gym», ho MHgMBMgya.bHHe, HenoBTO-puMtie ®H3HeHHHe ucTopuu — BC.egcTBue Toro, htg y HuHUKOBa, nog B.uHHueM uMeH u ux xapaKTepucTUK, npoctmaeTca noTpe6- HGCTb nOBeCTBGBaHUa: rpuzopuû floe3w:aû-He-doedewb! Tu umo Sun 3a uenoeex? H3eo3oM nu npoMbiwnan u, 3aeedmu mpoûxy u pozownyw xuôumxy, ompexcñ naeexu om doMy <...> (128). TaKUM o6pa3OM, MecTO UMeH «MepTBtix gym» 3ano.HaeT «CKa3» HUHUKGBa, B KOTOpOM — Ha OCHOBe 3HaHeHUH UMeHU — peKGHCTpy-upyeTca Ta u.u uHaa »u3Hb, CTpyKTypa KOTOpOM npegcraB.aeT uHguBugya.bHWM, HenoBTopuMtrn xapaKTep npucyTCTBua, cno-cg6hmm BMHecTu Ha noBepxHGCTb «ucTopuro gymu» u ^.OKynHtm o6pa3 He.GBeKa. MaxcuM Tenñmnuxoe, canownux! Xe, canownux! nbrn, xax canownux, zoeopum nocnoeuy,a. 3Haw, 3Haw meôa, zonyôuux; ecnu xouewb, ecw ucmopuw meow paccxawy <...>» (127). CMompa. domo Ha uMeHa ux, oh yMununc% dyxoM u, 63doxnyemu, npo-u3Hec: «Eamwmxu mou, cxonbxo eac 3decb nanmxano! umo eu, cep-deunue mou, nodenueanu na eexy ceoeM? xax nepeôusanucb?» (127). TaKUM o6pa3OM, Huhukgb u3 CKynmuKa «MepTBtix gym» npecy-mecTB.aeTCH b cy6tercr paccKa3HUKa ucTopuM »u3hu «»ubmx gym». 89 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a H TeM caMWM BWTecHaeT u3 po.u HappaTopa ^mktmbhofo aBTopa-pac-CKa3HMKa. Bc.egcTBMe Hero noc.egHMM TaK»e MeHaeT cbom CTaTyc m B CBOux BwcKa3WBaHuax o6pamaeTca k BonpocaM MeTaa3WKa no-BecTBOBaHua, b tom HMC.e — k npo6.eMe OTHomeHuM Me»gy aBTO-poM, repoeM m HMTae.eM. ^TMM o6tacHaeTca to, hto cegBMaa r.aBa, KOTopaa c.egyeT 3a onucaHueM BM3UTa k n.ramKMHy m b KOTopoM roBopuTca o tom, KaK Hmhmkob caM CTaHOBMTca paccKa3HMK0M, ot-KpwBaeTca TeM, hto paccKa3HUK npegcTaB.aeTca KaK nucaTe.B m no-CBamaeT HMTaTe.a b TpygHOCTM aBTopcTBa. «MeTKoe cnoBo» b ^o^Me AyTeHTMHHWM CTaTyc c.0Ba b nosMe o6ecneHMBaeTca He npeguKaTMB-HOM <£yH^MeM 3HaKa b HappaTMBHOM cucTeMe, a ero Kope^epeHTHoM cooTHeceHHOCTW c gpyruMM c.0BaMu, cocTaB.arom,MMM yHUKa.BHWM gucKypc b npo3e. roBopa o nymKMHe roro.B Bwpa3M.ca c.egyrom,MM 06pa30M: «B ero c.0Be 6e3gHa npocTpaHCTBa». npoBepuM 3T0T nocTy.aT Ha npuMepe fiopoau. OHa yKa3WBaeT, c ogHOM CTopoHw, Ha npocTpaHCTBeHHWM KOHTMHyyM nyTemecTBua HuHMKOBa, c gpyroM — Ha nyTB aBTopa k n03M0reHH0My c.0By, npe-3eHTMpyromuM npecymecTB.eHua: KaK oho «m3 y.u^i nonagaeT b KHury». TpaHC^opMa^Ma goporu m3 npocTpaHCTBeHHoro ^eHOMeHa b c.0BecHWM, to ecTB ^opMupoBaHue yHMKa.BHoro 3HaHeHua SToro noHaTua, onupaeTca Ha nepeuMeHOBaHue Bempwx cymHOcreM, co-CTaB.aromux ero 0CH0By. ropogcKaa 6y.w»Haa MOCTOBaa nepexoguT b ^poBMH^Ma.BHyw, Bw.o»eHHyra U3 6peBeH, 3aTeM b npoce.0HHyra, rpyHTOByro, 3aTeM yxoguT b «Heo6o3puMwe npocTpaHCTBa». B coot-BeTCTBMM co CMeHOM BapuaHTOB ,fl,oporM TpoMKa, exaBmaa b ropu-30HTa.BH0M HanpaB.eHMu, nogHMMaeTca b B03gyx, .eTUT b cpege «He3eMHwx nyTeM». By.w»Hoe m 6peBeHHaT0e noKpwTue BWHy»gaeT 90 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications 3Kuna» nognpwruBaTb, B3.eTaTb, m npoucxoguT 3to b gBe CTaguu. OguH M3 3TMM0H0B c.0Ba «gopora» — KopeHb, o6Hapy»MBaeMWM b r.aro.e «gëpraTb», KOTopwM npegcTaB.aeT co6oM ceMaHTune-CKyw Moge.b gBu»eHua to BBepx, to bhm3, b OT.unue ot noHaTuM, 03HaHaromux gBu»eHue b rpa3b, b TpacuHy, norpy»eHue, yBa3a-Hue. ,epraHue, TpacKa nepexoguT b yKanuBaHue, Korga c goporu, Bw.0»eHH0M 6peBHaMM, 3Kuna» c&e3»aeT Ha rpyHTOByw gopory. TyT repoM npocTpaHCTBa, nyTemecTBywmuM Hmhmkob, 3acwnaeT, 3aT0 npo6y»gaeTca k aKTUBHOCTu repoM c.0BecH0M c^epw, ABTop, neMy cooTBeTCTByeT aKTUBHoe caM0C03HaHue a3WK0B0r0 cy6teKTa, nogcnygHO npucyTCTBywmero b n0BecTB0Bare.e. H TyT HanuHaeTca nyTb c.0Ba «U3 y.u^i» «b KHury». C SToro MOMeHTa He noBecTBO-BaTe.b paccKa3WBaeT o nepuneTuax nyTemecTBua repoa, ho ,opora, CTaHOBacb a3WK0BWM cy6teKT0M, BegeT 3a co6oM «paccKa3HUKa», to ecTb OTMeHaeT ero 4>yHKu,uro: cy6teKT .upunecKux 0TCTyn.eHuM y»e He u3.araeT cw»eT, a TBopuT o6pa3 nucaTe.a. TaKUM 06pa30M, ,opora — MeTa^opa TBopnecKoM ucTopuu, ho He cw»eTHoro n.aHa onucwBaeMwx noxo»geHMM HunuKOBa. Penb ugeT o nosTunecKoM $yHKu,Mu a3WKa, Bwxogamaa 3a npege.w $yHKu,Mu noBecTBOBa-Te.bHoM; penb ugeT o cmaHoeneHuu cyöwKma a3WK0B0r0 TBopnecTBa9 — He penu repoa m.m n0BecTB0BaTe.a, ho a3WKa no3Mw b paMKax xy»0»ecTBeHH0M npo3w. Onupaacb Ha nepcneKTMBy aBTonoaTunecKux TeKCTOB, pacKpw-Bawmux TpygHOCTM u pagocTu TBopnecKoM ucTopuu, HUTaTe.b go.-»eH BepHyTbca k nepeocMbiceHuro geTa.eM, b KOTopoM nacTMHHwe u,e.bH0CTu m.m nycKaM ^parMeHTw (neTBepma 6yMaru, rycuHoe nepo) npocTpaHCTBeHHOM Moge.u 6ygyT gono.HeHw ux HenoBTopu-MOM MCTopueM, to ecTb Moge.bw ux TeMnopa.bHoro cymecTBOBaHua. B n.aHe a3WK0B0r0 npou3BegeHua npocTpaHCTBeHHoe u3MepeHue 9 CraHGB.eHMe cy6^-eKTGM HBaH Bepn cHMraer gchgbhwm xygo»ecrBeHHWM co6biTMeM, BGn.oma-wmuMca B nMCbMeH-HGM a3biK0TB0pHeCTBe nMcare.a. ÜGCKG.bKy cBepmeHMe 3Toro nocrynKa cnGco6crBy-er KGHcrHry^HH cyb-6eKra BwcKa3WBaHMa b MCKyccrBe c.0Ba, .m-reparypHwM gucKypc MG»er 6wrb GCMw.eH b KanecrBe Meranos-TMHecKoro aKra b paMKax «.MreparypHGM STMKM». (Bepn, 2016) 91 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a geTa.eM (t.h. o6pa3) Bocno.HaeTca ceMaHTUKoM npogyKTUBHoM MeTa-^opw, a TeM caMMM oTKpwBaeTca B03M0»H0CTt «nponuTaTb» cmmc. BHeBU3ya.bHoro acneKTa o6teKTa. flepeBo Ha 3eMae u gepeBo Ha au^ nyTt U3 ropoga k noMecTtro n.romKUHa, KaK a y»e roBopu., BegeT nepe3 ^pcTBo KaMHa, gepeBa m 3eM.u. B to »e BpeMa Ha3BaHua ux, gBuraacb k c.0By, npeo6pa3yroT onucwBaeMWM npegMeT b aBT0H0M-Hyro Bemt, u 0Ha npegcTaeT nepeg HaMu He C03epn,aeMBiM npegMeT0M, o6.agaromuM MaTepua.tH0CTtro u $0pM0M, ho TaKoM cymHocTtro, K0T0paa o6.agaeT 3HaneHueM u oTCBi.aeT k KaK0My-.u6o geMcTBuro. ,fl,.a co3epn,aromero u pa3MBim.arom.ero nyTHUKa (Huhukob), g.a pac-CKa3HUKa, Ha3MBaromero Bemu, u g.a nuTaTe.a y Hee, stom cymHocTu, ecTb He T0.bK0 o6pa3, ho u 3HaneHue. nocKo.tKy nyTt HunuK0Ba BegeT U3 ropoga, U3 npocTpaHCTBa «MepTBBix gym», b gepeBHro, a oTTyga — b «3aM0K» n.romKUHa, BK.ronaa b ce6a m nepexog nepe3 ^pcTBo gepeBeHb, cagoB m .ecoB, roro.t HaxoguT B03M0»H0CTt BepHyTt Be-maM ux 0HT0.0ruHecKUM CTaTyc, gecTa6u.u3upoBaHHMM b npon,ecce geTa.u3an.uu. TaK, HanpuMep, B03Bpamaa BemHocTb 6peBHy — u gBu-raacb npu stom b HanpaB.eHuu, np0TUB0n0.0»H0M ucTopuu cpegcTBa, to ecTb co3gaBaa ero naMaTb, — oh noKa3BiBaeT gepeBo u Ha ypoBHe caga u .eca. B xoge SToro oh pereHepupyeT uMeHa Bemu, BC.egcTBue nero M0»eT 3acTaB.aTb Bemu geMcTB0BaTb b KanecTBe 3HaK0B geMcTBua: b pyK0TB0pH0M Mupe opraHunecKoe, .ecHoe cymecTBo, b npocTpaHCTBe B0CC03gaHua, b cagy oho (gepeBo) noaB.aeTca KaK MeTa^opa pocTa, MeTa^opa ycrpeM.aromeMca BBepx, U3 3eMH0M »m3hm b gyxoBHyro. Cag g.a ne.0BeKa — caMaa gpeBHaa eguHu^ npocTpaHCTBa, a BMe-CTe C TeM — ^HH0CTb C MeTa^0pU3Up0BaHHBIM 3HaneHUeM C0Kp0-Buma. MepTBoe gepeBo, norpy»eHHoe b 3eM.ro 6peBH0 c TeneHueM 92 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications BpeMeHM TpaHC^opMupyeTca b KaMeHB — He.0BeK HanpaB.aeT BemB, no nyTM ee npeBpameHMa b cpegcTBO, k ge^eHepa^MM, b xoge KOTopoM 3Ta Bem,B yTpaTMT cbom 6mtmmhmm CTaTyc. Ho ogHOBpeMeHHO o6pe-TeT npM3HaKM o6teKTa He.0BenecK0r0 geMcTBua — OHa, TaK CKa3aTB, coTpeTca, noTycKHeeT u caMa gBUHeTca no nyTM gereHepan,Mu. Bot noHeMy y n.romKUHa .uu,o — «gepeBaHHoe» (115, 118). Ho sto «ge-peBO» HaxogMTca He b npocTpaHCTBe, a b a3MKe, b TeKCTe roro.a, rge oho CBa3aH0 c goporoM, — BegB KaK onpege.eHMe oho xaparcrepM3yeT m .uu,o, m gopory. Mokho CKa3aTB: oho o6o3HanaeT KOHen, 3eMHoro nyTM, HTO npuMeHMTe.BH0 k He.0BeKy 6ygeT o6o3HanaTB H0CUTe.a «cte^MBrneMca» äm3hm, «CTapuKa». Bce eguHun^i Mupa geMcTBuM «crapuKa» — GHeHB crapwe, GnpegeaeHue g.a hmx — «gpeBHue». Kgm-HaTa n.romKMHa npegcTaeT nepeg HaMu KyneM x.aMa, KonMBmeroca Ha no.y co BpeMeH ero MO.ogocTM. Ec.m b c.ynae c KoBaneBMM .m^, Ha MrHOBeHue 3aHMMarom.ee MecTO Hoca, norpy^eHO b MeTa^opuKy x.e6a, a MeTa^opuKa ^Ta MG^eT 6mtb cBegeHa k npuTHe g nmeHMHHOM 3epHe, Ko.oce m 3eM.e, to MecTO, 3aHMMaeMoe am^m n.romKMHa, Me-Ta^opMHecKaa gurpeccua 3ano.HaeT hgbmmm 3HaneHMaMM, HGCMTe.a-MM KOTopwx aB.aroTca npegMeTH. TaKMM 06pa30M, CBaaeHHwe b Kyny Ha no.y KGMHaTM npegMeTM o6pa3yroT o6pa3HMe KGnuM BMTa.BHGCTM, OTcyTCTByromeM Ha gepeBaHHOM .m^ n.romKMHa, KaK gpeBHue Ma-hm^ct^mm «^M3Hecn0C06H0CTM». HappaTMBHoe gepeBaHHoe am^, nogo6HG pyccKMM uKGHaM, aB.aeTca He M3G6paœeHueM BHemHerG Buga He.0BeKa, a gtcm.kgm k CMMC.y, «ugee» ero 6brraa b HacTGameM. Kyna BemeM — .MHHOCTHaa K0..e^Ma MHgeKCOB, oxBaTWBaromaa Bcro ero äm3hb: 3gecB oh, cy6teKr cKapegHOcru, cocpegoTaHMBaeT — «cKyKO-»MBaeT» b ogHy TOHKy — BecB noTeHnua. 3HaneHMM CBoero 3KcreH-CMBHGrG npGCTpaHCTBeHHGrG 6bITMa B HaCTOameM, npGCTpaHCTBeHHMe OTneHaTKM Bcex cbomx nocTynKOB. 93 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a OTcroga, oneBugHO, mo»ho BWBecTu u ero KnunKy: 3an^aTaHHoM. Ho ceMaHTUKa cnoBa TyT Ta ®e, hto u b cnynae c aTpu6yTaMu KoBa-^eBa: «3an.naTa», «nnocKUM», «n^aTOK» (hto BWKa3WBaeT pogcTBO u c uMeHeM n^romKUHa: «nnrom», ^paH^y3CKoe «pluche», uTa^baH-CKoe «peluzzo», to ecTB «MarKUM, nyx», ^aTUHCKoe «pilus», Bo^oc). naromKa — nacxantHoe neneHte b ^opMe nTu^i. «CoBepmeHHO poBHoe MecTO» (b noBecTu «Hoc») u «gepeBaHHoe» ^u^, CBugeTe^B-CTByrom.ee o no^HOM OTcyTCTBuu ^M0^u0Ha^bH0M mumuku, — u TyT, u TaM HaxoguT Bwpa»eHue, c n,e.nBro pa3BepTWBaHua ynoMaHyToro Bwme noTeH^ana 3HaneHuM, ceMaHTUKa u MeTa^opuKa gepeBa. B cooTBeTCTBuu co craguaMK CTapeHua ycyry6^aroTca — b ^poe^Mpy-eMwx Ha ^u^ Bemnwx 3HaKax — CBoMcTBa gepeBa. ^T0 yMHO»eHue, npoucxogam.ee b npoTUBOBec CKyKO»uBaHuro «u3HeHHoro BpeMeHu, npuBoguT k noaB^eHuro Kynu x^aMa Ha no^y KOMHaTw, 3aTeM npe-TepneBaeT MeTaMop<£o3y, nocKO^BKy n^romKUH Hage^aeT Bemu «^u-U.OM». ge^o b TOM, hto oh nepeMemaeT ux c no^a Ha 6ropo. geMcTBue 3T0 roro^B BBipa^aeT chobom «K.nan», 0gH0K0peHHWM co chobom «K^ag». Bemu, noHUMaeMwe KaK npegMeTw HaKon^eHua — He uc-n0^B30BaHua — npeBpamaroTca b TpeneTHO o6eperaeMwe coKpoBuma: ïïiromKKH noMenaeT Ka»gwM OTge^BHwM npegMeT, gaeT um uMeHa, to ecTB coxpaHaeMwe Bemu noMemaeT b go^rocponHyro naMaTB, b cpe-gy a3WKa. ^Ty onepan,uro oh npou3BoguT He to^bko c iumeHHWMu CBoeM $yHKu,uu BemaMu, ho u c yMepmuMu KpecTtaHaMu, Bcneg-CTBue nero Huhukob u no^ynaeT bo3mo»hoctb nponecTB ux UMeHa. 3tum o6tacHaeTca tot ^arcr, hto nepo u 6yMara — gBa caMwx Ba^Hwx geMcTByromux npegMeTa Ha 6ropo y n^romKUHa, a TaK»e to, hto ero pyKu, areHT geMcTBua, o6.nag,aroT CBOMCTBaMu raa3. r^a3a, KaK y ^ury-pupyromeM b cpaBHeHuu Mwmu — n^eHa cbktbi Ano^^OHa MycareTa, — sto B3r^ag My3w, b HeM cocpegoToneHa gpo»B Bcero npuBegeHHoro 94 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications b TpaHC Tena, KaK o6pa3 ^noro, uHTerpupoBaHHoro b My3BiKanBHoM TepMUHe. ,fl,po»am1eM ot BonHeHua pyKe roronB coo6maeT Ty »e ^yHK-^uro, hto u HenoBTopuMoMy ^M0^u0HanBH0My BBipa»eHuro Ha nu^: BBipa»eHue 3to Bo3HMKaeT nog BnuaHueM «Tennoro» npuKocHoBeHua CBeToBoro nyna, hto6bi TyT »e yracHyTB, ucne3HyTB. C nuu,a, cny-»am,ero gna «BBipa»eHua» Toro, hto BHyTpu (gepeBaHHoro nu^), «BBipa»eHue» ucne3aeT, ho TyT »e nepeMem,aeTca Ha pyKy, HocuTenB »ecTa, npeBpam,arom,ero «gyrnw» b cnucoK uMeH. B npo^cce nucBMa «gpo»am,aa» pyKa nnromKUHa npeBpam,aeT 6yKBw b HoTHBie 3HaKM, b 3Bynam,yro cpegy «gymeBHocru», gapuT um cBoeo6pa3Hoe «BeHHoe» 6wTue. HenerKoe HTeHue ux, geKogupoBaHue hothbix 3HaKoB KaK 6yKBeHHwx unu cnoBecHBix uHgeKcoB u BW3oBeT noToM y HunuKoBa «3ayHWBHyro necHro», KoTopaa b KoHeHHoM cneTe BBinBeTca b o6pa3 pyccKoro neraca, neTarn,eM TpoMKu, o6peTeT craTyc ^arcropa, koh-cTUTyupyromyro nosMy. He 6ygeM Bce »e 3a6wBaTB: TexHuKa roroneBcKoro noBecTBoBaHua peKoHcTpyupyeT He toabko ucropuro HenoBeKa, ho m ucropuro Bem,eM. A 3Ta ucTopua npaMo cBa3aHa c yBenuneHueM geTanen (runep6ona), c mx pe3KMM ocBe^eHMeM, c ux Bo3BegeHueM b 6onee bbicokmm ^h-hocthbim pa3pag: pacreHua, 3a6op (cag), gepeBHa, crpouTenBHaa gpeBecuHa, KpoBenBHaa gpaHKa, u36a, gom,aTWM non, Kop3MHa, 6oHKa, Hama u t. g. ^po^uTupyeM rorona: 3a^nñHyn 6u Kmo-nuóydb k HeMy na pa6ouuü deop, zde Ha^omoeneHo 6uno Ha 3anac ecñKo^o depeea u nocydu, HUKo^^a He ynompe6nñemeü-cñ, — eMy 6u nom3anocb, yw He nonan nu oh mK-Huóydb e Mocxey Ha w,enHoü deop, <...> zde ^opaMu 6eneem ecñKoe depeeo, mumoe, mo-neHoe, naweHoe u nnemeHoe: 6ohkü, nepecexu, yrnamu, na^yHu, w6a-Hbi c pbinbu,aMu u 6e3 punev,, no6pamuMu, nyKornxu, MbKonbHUKu, 95 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a Kyda ëaëbi Knadym ceou mohku u nponuû dpo3z, Kopoôha u3 moHKou znymoû ocuHbi, ôypaKu u3 nnemeHoû öepecmxu u mhozo ecezo, nmo udem Ha nompeôy ôozamoû u 6edmü Pycu. Ha nmo 6u, Ka3anoch, Hyw-Ha 6bina nnwmmHy marna zuôenh nodo6Hux mdenuû? eo ecw wu3Hh He npuwnoch 6u ux ynompeôumh dawe Ha dea maKux uMeHua, Kaxue ôbinu y Hezo, - ho eMy u smozo Ka3anoch Mano» (109). geMCTBua ïïiwmKHHa gocruraroT CBoeM n,e.u He b MC^0.^b30BaHMM u ^0Tpe6.eHMM, a b xpaHeHuu u Bep6a.bH0M, «cn.rom,eHH0M» («nnw^») b 6yKBM-3HaKu npoaB.eHuu. Hto c tohku 3peHua uc-n0.b30BaHua u noTpe6.eHua, to ecTb u c tohku 3peHua HunuKoBa u cocegeM, aB.aeTca CBoero poga CKynocTbro, npuneM caM0n,e.BH0M CKynocTbro. OgHaKo, no MHeHuw aBTopa, nawmKHH — He CKyn, a 6e-pe^.uB («<...> CTapuK 0HyTu.ca oguH cropo^eM, xpaHuTe.eM <...>», 111). Oh — H0cuTe.b 6tiTua, CBegeHHoro k ogHoM T0HKe, k ogHoM «3a-n.aTe» — 3to CBoero poga «3an.aTa» Ha n,e.0M. Ho Begb 3an.araTb mo®ho T0.bK0 pa3.e3mywca, npoxyguBmywca TKaHb. ïïaKmKuH, KaK npegMeT n0BecTB0BaHua u.u onucaHua, KaK CKpara, K0HKpeTM3Mpy-eT, no npu3HaKy CBoux geMcTBuM, caMtm Ba^HtiM ceMaHTunecKuM acneKT CBoero uMeHu — oh KonuT, cn.wmuBaeT, to ecTb KoHn.eHTpu-pyeT BHuMaHue Ha cMtic.e o6teKTa, (HanpuMep, Ha cMtic.e uMeH). TaKuM 06pa30M, oh KaK cy6teKT TeKCTa Ha ceMaHTunecK0M ypoBHe npuHuMaeT o6pa3 cte^uBawmeroca CKynu,a («ccoxmuMca CTapuK»). PegyKn.ua CKynocTu, HanpaB.eHH0M Ha MaTepua.bHoe cymecTB0Ba-Hue, npuBoguT k gocTu^eHuw BMcmeM CTyneHu a3MK0B0M u cumbo-.uHecK0M MaHM^ecTa^MM Bem,Horo 6wTua. geaTe.bH0CTb, b npon,ecce K0T0p0M coTBopeHHwe Bemu gerpagupywT b T0Bap, b cpegcTBo, b pac-no.3awm.ywca MaTepuw, to ecTb b HeHTo .umeHHoe CMMC.a, oh CMe-HaeT gpyroM geaTe.bH0CTbw. Bemu, pegy^MpoBaHHwe go ypoBHa 96 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications mx MaTepua^BHocTM, mx po.u KaK cpegcTB, oh B03B0guT b Mup Bem,eM, KOTopwe go^^HM 6mitb ocMMcjeHHMMM. Hx ^hhoctb g.a HunuKOBa cTaHOBMTca ^hhoctbw pereHepupoBaHHwx TaKMM 06pa30M «gym»: KaK pe3y.BTaT geaTe.BH0CTM My^MKOB («gym»), B03B0gam,ux Bemu b paHr coBepmeHua geMCTBua, a Tax^e geaTe.BH0CTu n^romKMHa, co3garom,ero MMeHa ^TMx My^MKOB. ^TMM mo^ho o6tacHMTB gpyroM aTpu6yT ero coxpaHaromeM geaTe.BH0CTu: cypryn KaK rpenecKyro MeTa^opy gymu (u C03HaHua): «nepo u KyconeK cypryna» (111). Bew¡b dnñ Hezo He o6nadaem HurnKoü v^eHHocmu do moü MuHymu, Kozda oh nodeepzaem ee «peemuu». Ha Kamduü omdenbHuü npedMem oh «caM cdenan HaMemxy». 06o eceM npoueM oh 3a6uean, «noMHun monbKo <...>, zde nemano nepuwxo unu cypzyuux» (maM me). «C KamduM zodoM yxodunu u3 euda, 6onee u 6onee, znaeHue uacmu xo3ñücmea, u Menxuü 63znñd ezo o6pa^anca k 6yMammM u nepuw-küm <...>» (maM me). KaK a y^e ynoMMHa., 3tot MeTog — Bep6a.BH0e ycyry6.eHue 3Ha-HUTe.BH0CTM He3HaHMTe.BHoro — BKnronaeT b ce6a u yMepmux Kpe-CTBaH: n.romKMH «Bcex ux cnuca. Ha oco6yro 6yMa^Ky» (119). Ho, hto He MeHee Ba^Ho: 0gH0BpeMeHH0 «cBe^uBaeTca» u ero nonepK: n.romKMH penpe3eHTupyeT He to.bko cymecTBOBaHue, pegyn,upoBaH-Hoe go 6yKB, ho BMecTe c TeM ocym.ecTB.aeT ux TpaHC^03M^Mro b gpy-ryro cucTeMy 3HaK0B: «<...> cra. nucaTB, BBicraB.aa 6yKBM, noxo^ue Ha My3MKa.BHwe hotbi, <...> .ena CKyno CTpoKa Ha CTpoKy <...>» (119). H TyT npoucxoguT c.egyrom,ee: Korga 3HaKM, ^urypupyromue Ha 6yMa»HBix .ocKyTKax, npuKneeHHBix Ha 0Tge.BHwe npegMeTw u opygua, oh npeo6pa3yeT b cnucoK MMeH u 3aH0CUT Ha oguH .mct, 97 ArpAd kovAcs ► K BonpocaM MeTanosTMKM roro^a to KaK 6yMa»HBiM .0CKyT0K, TaK u a3BiK0BBie ^parMeHTw o6,Begu-HaroTca b HOByro CMCTeMy, b TecHBie ctpohkm, to ecTB npeo6pa3yroTca b TeKcT. TeM caMHM npocTpaHcTBeHHBiM o6pa3, «Kyna» BemeM npoe-^MpyeTca Ha Huc.eHHBiM pag yMepmux («m Bcero gBecm c awmKOM ne.0BeK») m noBTopaeTca, uHTerpupoBaHHO, y»e b TeKcTe «KynneM KpenocTu», Ha 6yMa»H0M .ucre. Bep6a.BH0e cooTBeTcTBue Bem,eM u .rogeM («gym») onupaeTca Ha npuHuun B3auM0geMCTBua: Bemu ^opMupyroTca b ^H^paMMw ne^OBenecKoro geMcTBua, geMcTBue HanpaB.eH0 Ha yBe.uneHue h^hhocthom ho3mh,mm Bemen. HHTepaKu.ua gByx ceMaHTunecKux no.eM — Bemu u ne.0BeKa — nopo»gaeT cmbic.: OTcyTcTBue gymu noHMMaeTca KaK omymeHue OTcyTCTBua, KaK MaHM^ecTa^Ma Nihil. TeKcT gaeT gBa caMBie Ba»HBie npoHTeHua «MepTBBix gym»: 1. yMep-mue MHguBugw, K0T0pwe b peBM3cKMx cKa3Kax ^urypupyroT eme KaK ®uBHe; 2. ®uBHe .rogu, K0T0pwe gep»aT cbom gymu Bga.u, a 3HaHMT, ux .u^, Hepea.u30BaH0 b n.aHe cro»eTHBix nocTynKOB, He geTa.M3upyeTca b noBecTBOBaHuu. Po.b nepBOM rpynnw oneBugHa; BTopaa Hy»gaeTca b KOMMeHTapuu. B OTHomeHuu egBa .u He Ka»-goro nepc0Ha»a B03HMKaeT motmb gMCTaH^MM, «Heo6o3puMBix ga-.eM», KOTopwe cuMB0.u3upyroT gMCTaH^Mro Me»gy Te.0M m gymoM, np0Ta»eHH0CTBro u geMcTBueM — Me»gy np0Ta»eHH0M ^urypoM m CKyKO^eHHHM, geMOHCTpupyromuM 0gH0-egMHCTBeHH0e cbomctbo b KanecTBe uHguBugya.BHoro cymecTBa. CKynocTB n.romKMHa — MeTa^opa, K0T0paa c.y»uT npeogo.e-Huro 3Toro napagoKca: oh Heonpege.uM b np0CTpaHCTBeHH0M u3-MepeHuu, ero ^urypa He noggaeTca ^pegMKa^MM: oh hm k.khhmk, hm K.ronHu^, hm My»uK, hm 6a6a, oh 6oraT u b to »e BpeMa Hum. Oh CKyK0»uBaeTca b ogHy TOHKy, kotopom Ha ypoBHe TeKCTa cooTBeT-CTByeT c.eg, 0CTaB.aeMBiM ero pyKOM, — 3HaK m.m 6yKBa, a3BiK0BBiM 98 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications ^.eMeHT, MeHtmHM, HeM c.oBecHBiM 3HaK. MeTa^opa ^T0M ugeo-rpaMMw — «3an.aTa», npopexa, hchto, 3aKpwiBarom.ee nycToe MecTO. Cmbic. MeTa^opw b tom, hto nog nepoM ÜjwmKMHa ga^e 6yKBBi HacTo.BKo CKyKo^MBaroTca, hto MoryT 6bitb npuHSTBi 3a HoTHBie 3HaKM. ^TO, ec.u yrogHo, oTCBmKa k 3ByKy; Korga peHB ugeT o 6yK-BeHHoM cxeMe c.oBa, nepeg HUTaTe.eM pacKpwiBaeTca K0M^eHca^ua Bep6a.BHon HegocTaTonHocTM nepcoHa^a. Em,e nepeg 3tmm cobo noBecTBoBaTe.a onpege.aeT o6pa3 c.y-^e6Horo coctoshus Bem,eM, Kyny — no o6pa3u,y «HaTwpMopTa» (= «MepTBaa npupoga») — KaK ««mbohmchmm 6ecnopagoK». TeM caMWM noMe^aeT 3pe.um,e Bem,eM npaKTunecKu b hobmm — u3o-6pa3MTe.BHMM — pag: BegB ohm TenepB He npocTo npegcTawT b paM-Ke, ho npegcraB.aroT co6om Mup, cTpyKTypupoBaHHwrn no-cBoeMy, no ^eTaM, TeHaM, jhhmsm, oTTeHKaM cBeTa. C.egyrom,uM maroM, pea.M3ywm.MM TpaHC<£opMa^uro, n.wmKUH BBige.aeT Bem,u u3 3tom BM3ya.BHoM Moge.u. TeM caMBiM oh coo6m,aeT mm He3aBucuMocTB ot mx npaKTunecKoro, STunecKoro m.m 3cTeTunecKoro ^hhocthofo paHra. Bce sto roro.B 3acTaB.aeT ge.aTB cBoero repoa g.a Toro, hto6w no.yHMTB bo3mo^hoctb nepeMecTMTB mx b Mup 3HaKoB u c.ob, 3aTeM oTTyga — b pag 3ByKoB, KoTopwe co3gawT uMeHa, u.u b pag hothwx 3HaKoB, o6o3Hanawmux My3HKa.BHHe 3ByKu. H3 Mupa npou3HeceH-Horo u HanucaHHoro c.oBa — Ha n.ocKocTB necHM-3oBa gymu, Ha n.o-ckoctb, rge Bemu Bwno.HaroT cbow po.B y^e KaK uHgeKcw-3HaKu stom gyxoBHocTu: npe^HUM HocuTe.B uMeHu, oTMeneHHoro hothwm 3HaKoM, b 3tom Hapage cTaHoBUTca npoBogHUKoM rocnogcTByromen uHT0Ha^uu nosMBi, u yga.uBmaaca «gyma», mo^ho cKa3aTB, npo-6y»gaeTca k »m3hm. He cynaMHo Hmhmkob, no.ynuB y n.wmKMHa, g.a coBepmeHua Kynnen KpenocTu, cnucoK uMeH, uMUTupyrom,uM HoTHwe 3HaKu, 99 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a m CH0Ba BHexaB Ha 6o.tmyro Aopory, «3aTaHy. KaKyro-T0 necHro, go TaKoM CTeneHM Heo6HKH0BeHHyro, hto caM Ce.u^aH c.yma., c.y-ma. m n0T0M, noKanaB c.erKa r0.0B0M, CKa3a.: «Bumt th, KaK 6apuH noeT!» (122). B TeKCTe ^urypupyeT c.obo «necHa», K0Topoe, no npu-HMHe 3TMM0.oruHecKoro pogcTBa c.ob «neTt» m «nuTt», b pyccK0M n03TMHeCK0M a3HKe H0CMT K0HH0Ta^Mro Bg0xH0BeHMa. CBepx Toro, hto hmhmkob, b BHcmeM CTeneHM ygoB.eTBopeHHHM pe3y.tTaTaMM CBoero BM3MTa, HaneBa. hto-to Bece.oe, no gopore ero 3acTuraeT gpy-raa gMC^03M^Ma, m n0T0My oh «HaK0He^ 3aTaHy. KaKyro-T0 necHro», b BHcmeM CTeneHM HeonpegeneHHyro». HHT0Ha^Ma 3tom necHM ot.m-HaeTca ot npe»HeM, Bece.0M, oh — «3aTaHy.» necHro, KaK 6h o»m-gaa 0TK.MKa, K0Toporo TaK m He go»ga.ca. Ce.u^aH — c.ymaeT, c.ymaeT. «BugHo, TaK y» 6HBaeT Ha CBeTe; BugHo, hto Hmhmkobh Ha HecK0.BK0 MMHyT b »M3HM o6pam,aroTca b n03T0B <...>» (158). 06^acHeHue, ogHaKo, npuxoguT He ot Hero, a ot aBTopa, koto-pHM npu6.M»aeT 3gect BBiCKa3BiBaHue HuHMK0Ba k gByxro.ocoM T0Ha.BH0CTM no3MBi, to ecTB co3gaeT napagoKca.BHoe coo6pa»eHue K0MMHecKux geTa.neM m rpycTHoM MCTopuu ^.oro, BuguMoro Hmhto m gMC^03M^MM HeBuguMoro: yBugeTt-ocBeTMTt »m3hb ckb03b «bm-guMHM Mupy CMex m HeBuguMBie Mupy c.e3H». HMa nepeBoguT Bem,t b o6.acTt 3HaHeHua, KynHaa KpenocTt no-nagaeT b pyKM k aBTopy, kotophm Ha 0CH0Be Ka»goro MMeHu co3gaeT HenoBTopuMyro, xoTa m ^MKTUBHyro ucropuro. HMeHHo b 3tom 3agana (BBixogam,aa 3a npege.H T0»gecTBa HappaTMBa) repoa, HuHMK0Ba, kotophm o6.eKaeT «MepTBBix», ucxoga m3 paccKa3a 0 hmx, «npu-gyMaHH0M» — 0TTa.KMBaact ot MMeHu — »M3HeHH0M ucropueñ, a TeM caMHM, m hobhm — MCKflronaromuM onpege.eHue «MepTBBiM» — 3HaHeHueM. Ha 0CH0Be 6o.tmMHCTBa uMeH oh ^opMy.upyeT oguH m tot »e Bonpoc: 100 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications rpuzopuûp,oe3waû-He-doedemb! Tu nmo 6un 3a nenoeex? <...> Ha ^opo^e nu mu omdan dywy 6ozy, unu yxodunu meöa. meou we npu-ñmenu <...> (i28).<...> ecnu xonemb, ecw ucmopuw meow paccxa-wy <...> (128). EgMHCTBO HeopraHMHecKOM m opraHMHecKoM npupogti, KaK mbi bm-ge,M Ha npuMepe c gepeBOM, TpaHcnoHMpyeTca b Mup coTBopeHHoro m ynopagoHeHHoro gepeBeHCKoro geMcTBua, b Mup, KOToptiM conpu-KacaeTca c cagoM. h,m, no Moge,u roro,a, c 3eM,eM, b KOTopoM 3aptiT K,ag. r,aBHaa BO3BegeHua gepeBa b paHr Bern,Horo MHgeKca geMcTBua (nog BO3BegeHueM uMeeTca b Bugy nepeuMeHOBaHue m m3-,o»eHMe ero Mcropuu) 3aK,ronaeTca b tom, hto6bi pereHepupoBaTB MCKOHHWM cnoco6 6wTMa Bem,M — Bcro MCTopuro, a He to,bko 3pe-,Mrn,e, npegcTaB,eHHoe geTa,aMM, He to,bko Kyny x,aMa. HMeHHO 6,arogapa ^T0M MCTopuM, BO3Bpam,arom,eMca k MCKOHHOMy CTaTycy («,ec»), Ka»gaa ucno,B3yeMaa «cerogHa», to ecTB arcrya^BHO, Bem,B, o6peTaeT cbom 0HT0,0rMHecKMM CTaTyc. A b n,aHe ceMaHTMKu ro-ro,eBCKoro gucKypca TpaHcnoHMpyeTca Ha nyTB, BegymuM k c,OBy 0 npegHa3HaneHMM Bem,M. ^aHHwe MeTaMop^o3w, T.e. cro»eTH0CTB Bem,u gocTuraeTca BC,egcTBue Toro, hto b MCTopuu BcaKOM Bem,u nucaTe,B BwaB,aeT ee KOHCTMTyTMBHyro po,B: geTa,M — He to,bko HacTM, ho m naeHH, o6ecneHMBarom,Me, c ogHoM cropoHti, $yHKu,M-OHMpoBaHMe n,e,oro, c gpyroM — nepexog n,e,oro Ha ypoBeHB 6o,ee BwcoKoro egMHCTBa, b KOTopoe oho y»e m caMO MHTerpupyeTca KaK ero geaTe,BHaa, cocTaBHaa HacTB. no,HOTa caMo6wTMa Bernau nopo»g,aeTca npuHuunoM Kope^epeH-^MM npo3auHecKoro TeKCTa: Bem,B cym,ecTByeT ,umb KaK Kope^epeHT gpyroM Bem,u, a He KaK nogBep»eHHBiM 03HaHUBaHuro geHOTaT, KycoK MaTepuu b npocTpaHCTBe. (^,o6hmhckmm 6e3 Bo6HMHCKoro He mhcjhm; 101 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a He TG.bKG KoBa.eB, hg u ero Hoc T0»e KoBa.eB.) ^puH^u^ Kope^e-peH^uu rorG.b onpege.u. c.gbgm cooôpaMenue, u npoTUBonocraB-.a. BGo6pa»eHuro. He.GBeK — TG «MecTG» B uepapxuu 6wTua, rge CHOBa u CHOBa npoucxoguT 03HaHUBaHue, a3WK0Baa apTMKy,a^Ma npegHa3HaneHua Bemu, a 3hhut, He nog.e»amuM 3aBepmeHuro npo^cc uHu^ua^uu 3HaneHua. 3tg M0»eT 6wtb hgbgm nogcKa3KoM g.a noHUMaHua ro-ro.eBCKoro npegcTaB.eHua o «HacToameM »u3hu», a TaK»e g.a no-HUMaHua OTHOcameMca k HeM 0TCw.Ke b ^o^Me, MeTa^opunecKoM 4>yH^uu ^oporu. B ^T0M n.aHe CKpwToe 3a BuguMWMu HappaTUBHWMu geTa.a-Mu «HeBuguMoe» co6wTue, reHepupyrom.ee ^o^My, geMOHCTpupy-eT He HTO uHoe KaK BticrpauBaHue nacreM b HOBoe eguHCTBO, a TeM caMWM — oco3HaHue 06H0B.aromuxca cnoco6oB ^urypaTUBHoro Bwpa»eHua. TaKUM 06pa30M, «gyma» y roro.a 03HanaeT uHcnupa-u,uro uHguBugya.bHoro u HenoBTopuMoro TBopnecKoro geMcTBua, a He Ha6op HyBCTBeHH0-^M0^M0Ha,bHHx pea^uM. ^Ty MHC^Mpa^Mro reHepupyeT Ha ypoBHe coo6m,ecTBa ^THunecKuM Kog gaHHoro a3WKa. ^Ty B3auM03aBucuM0CTb geMcTBua u HauMeHOBaHua roro.b, xopomo 3Harom,uM repgepa, c^opMy.upoBa. c.egyrom,uM 06pa30M: H ecñKoú napod, noca^uû e ce6e sanoz cm, nonnbû meopa^ux cnoco6-nocmeû dywu, ceoeû apKoû oco6ennocmu u dpyzux dapoe 6oza, ceoeo-6pasno omnmunca Kawdbiû cboum co6cmeennuM cnoeoM, KomopbM, eupawaa KaKoû nu na ecmb npedMem, ompawaem e eupaMenbu ezo rncmb co6cmeennozo ceoezo xapaKmepa. <...> no nem cnoea, Komopoe 6bino 6b maK saMamucmo, 6oüko, maK eupeanocb 6b us-nod caMozo cepdu,a, maK 6b xuneno u wueompenemano, KaK MemKo cmsannoe pyccKoe cnoeo» (102). 102 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications 3to «MeTKoe cobo» oraocHTca He tohbko k n.romKMHy, no.yHHBme-My npo3Bum,e «3an.aTaHHOM» (u3 3nu3oga c n.romKMHWM u B3aTa npuBegeHHaa ^MTaTa): oho HaraagHO npogeMoHcrpupoBaHo npuMe-HMTe.BHo k TpoMKe, pyccKoM ynpa»Ke, npegcTaB.aromeM ucKyccTBO o6pa6oTKu gepeBa u aB^aromeMca 3gecB u Bemtro, u MeTa^opoM: ^ü, mpoüKü! nmuv,a mpoüm, Kmo meóa. eudyMan? 3Hamb, y 6oüKO^o Hapoda mu MO^na monbKO podumbca <...> H He xumpuü, Kawucb, dopoMuuü cmpnd, He wene3HUM cxeaneH euHmoM, a HacKopo MuebeM, c odHuM monopoM da donomoM, crnpadun u coópan meóa. apocnaecKuü pacmoponHUü MywuK» (232). no MHeHuro roro.a, b $yHKu,uu ne.OBenecKoro geMcrBua gepeBo, KaK apxe Bemu, Mo»eT gereHepupoBartca, nepe3 6peBHo, b u,apcrBo HeopraHunecKoro cymecrBOBaHua; ho MO»eT u nepeMTM b c^epy HagnyBcTBeHHoro 6wTua. ^TOMy cooTBeTcTByeT caMoe gpeBHee u ca-Moe cBoeo6pa3Hoe pyKoTBopHoe npou3BegeHue pyccKoro My»uKa, cumbo. ero cBoeo6pa3Horo cnoco6a geMcrBua, KaK c.egyeT m3 üosmbi. H nocKo.BKy, KaK cumbo., oho OTKpBiBaeT b Ky.BType noTeHu,uan 3HaneHMM, oho craHOBMTca mctohhmkom ynoMaHyToro y»e »aHpa pyccKoM HapogHoM necHM (TocK.uBaa necHa), KOTopaa TaKOM apTu-Ky.^a^MeM cnoco6a geMcTBua cnoco6Ha 6w.a uHcnupupoBaTB b mcto-puKo-.uTepaTypHoM npou,ecce .upunecKyro, 3aTeM no3MoreHHyro, 3aTeM npo3O-a3BiKOByro Moge.u cy6^eKTMBHoro 6wTua. B ropoge «He yc.BimumB hm ogHoro nopagonHoro pyccKoro c.OBa». B o6wgeHHoM penu, HM3BegeHHOM go ypoBHa cn.eTeH, rocnogcTByroT m.m MHocrpaHHBie c.OBa, m.m naTpuoTMnecKMe ^pa3w. 3to — oropo»eHHoe npocTpaHcTBo 3eM.u, KoTopoe npo-tmboctomt u,e.OMy, He noggaromeMyca ^MKca^MM b npocTpaHcTBe, 103 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a 6e3rpaHMHH0My npocTopy pogHoM 3eMnu, rge «nro6uT Bce 0Ka3aTtca B mupoKOM pa3Mepe». Korga 6puHKa Btie3»aeT U3 ropoga, U3 ^pcTBa «MepTBtix gym», y HuHMKOBa B03HUKaeT HyBCTBO, 6ygT0 Bce npegMeTti ropoga m Bce BuguMwe geTanu ux «MegneHHO yxogaT Ha3ag» (207). nocnegHUM TaKOM MepTBMM aTpu6yT — «6ecK0HeHHaa norpe6antHaa nponeccua», KOTopaa neperopa»MBaeT 6puHKe gopory: «3a rpo6oM mnu, CHaBmu mnanM, Bce hmhobhmkm». B KOHeHHOM CHeTe 3Ty cn,eHy mo»ho noHaTt m b TOM CMMcne, HTO noKOMHMK (npoKypop) aBnaeTca MepTBeu,0M b KBagpaTe: Begt TyT yMep «MepTBMM», a xopoHaT ero, ugyT 3a rpo6oM nepBMHHwe «MepTBeu,ti». B 3tom — cyTt peKypcuBHoro npou,ecca: MepTBwe OTnpaBnaroTca b nyTt — M0»eT 6tiTt, 06paTH0, b »u3Ht. H, B03M0»H0, 3TMM M0»H0 o6taCHMTt pe^eKCMM HuHMKOBa: ecw ^ny6uHy xonodHux, pa3dpo6neHHUx, noecedHeeHux xapaxme-poe <...> (124). roro.B xoHeT 0TKa3aTBca ot c03gaHua 06pa30B, BOcnpuHMMaeMwx KaK eguHCTBO xaparcrepHtix cbomctb. Ho 3aMeHaeT ux He cto.bko ^urypoM He.0BeKa «6e3 cbomctb», cko.bko B3r.ag0M, uccegyromuM B.uaHue OTcyTCTBua cbomctb, a^ercr Nihil. Bonpoc ero HanpaB.eH Ha c.egyrom,ee: KaK npoaB.aeTca b »m3hm m KaK M0»eT u3o6pa»aTBca b ucKyccTBe He3HaHMTe.BH0e, napTMKy.apHoe, 6aHa.BH0e, nom.oe? npo6.eMa He b tom, KaKOBw 0T.MHMTe.BHwe npu3HaKM stmx KaHecTB. npo6.eMa — b tom, hto6w yBugeTB 3tm npu3HaKM: yBugeTB b hm-HT0»ecTBe 0TTa.KMBaromee (X.ecTaKOB, KoBa.eB) m.m, HanpoTUB, 3ac.y»MBarom,ee cocTpagaHua (AKaKuH AKaKueBMH, nonpumuH). 105 ArpAd kovAcs ► K BonpocaM MeTanosTMKM roro^a npuneM yBugeTb b TaKux aBneHuax, K0T0pwe TeM He MeHee cnoco6Hbi co3gaBaTb BMflMMOCTb «Munoro», «flocroMHoro», «conugHoro» — cy-6nuMaT He3HanMTenbHocTM, TaK KaK nu^Mepue ux nocroaHHo y Hac nepeg rna3aMu, a noToMy mm npuBbiKaeM u TepaeM BocnpuuMnu-BocTb k HeMy. H6o 3aypagHoe, nomnoe u He gyMaeT npaTaTbca, KaK, HanpuMep, ^oh Kmxot nog MacKoM pb^apa, unu TaM.neT nog MacKoM 6e3yMu,a, unu OaycT nog MacKoM yneHoro. nocToaHHo, geM0HcrpaTuB-ho BwcTaBnaa ce6a Ha Bceo6m.ee o6o3peHue, oho genaeT Hame Bocnpu-aTue HenyBcTBuTenbHMM, MexaHunecKuM. ^0^T0My b pe^eHepa^uu Hy^garoTca «paBHogymHbie onu», opraH nyBCTB, npoeKTupyromuM o6pa3 He3HanuTenbHoro. Hero Toronb u go6uBaeTca pa3BeHnaHueM rna3 — u3o6pa^eHueM My3biKanbHoro, ^uBonucHoro u Bep6anbHoro («Bum», «nopTpeT»). Tenepb, Korga mw o6pucoBanu no3TunecKyro <£yH^uro pegy^uu («cte^uBaHua») M3o6Mnyrom1e^o nogpo6HocTaMu npocTpaHcTBa geM-cTBua, unu, TonHee, ponb stom pegy^uu, MorymeM paccMaTpuBaTbca KaK ayguTuBHaa Mogenb ^u3HeHHoro BpeMeHu, mokho nepeMTu k aHanu3y cro^eToo6pa3yromeM ponu cunw u gBu^eHua; aHanu3 ^T0T 6ygeT pacnpocTpaHeH u Ha uccnegoBaHue KoppenaToB Happa-TuBHoro, a3WK0B0r0 u ^0^TMHecKM-a3bIK0B0^0 BpeMeHu. H ynoMu-Han y»e, hto ^Tu pagw co6wtum u TpaHcrpeccuu roronb peanu3yeT b paMKax 06pa30B penu, cnoBecHwx $eH0MeH0B, ^uryp u MHT0Ha^MM, oTpwBaromuxca ot c^epw geMcTBua; Bce ^T0 oh o6teguHaeT b no-HaTuu «nupunecKue oTcTynneHua». H TyT mw nepexoguM ot pac-cM0TpeHua HappaTuBHoM geTanu3a^uu k aHanu3y Tex npoaBneHuM a3WK0B0M KpeaTuBHocTu, KoTopwe npeo6pa3yroT ^^uHecKoe noBe-cTB0BaHue b ^o^My. HHT0Hau,u0HHaa penpe3eHTau.ua rocygapcTBa, ynogo6naeMoro neTameM KpwnaToM KonecHuue npegcTaBnaeT Ty «HeBegoMyro cuny», 106 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications KOTopaa OTBepraeT «npoerpaHCTBa», «CTpaHy», «rocnogcrBO», to ecTb reorpa^MHecKMe, nonuTunecKue, ^KOHOMUHecKue npocrpaHcrBeH-Hwe Moge^M, oTBepraeT gna Toro, hto6bi 3agaTbca BonpocoM o cMbicne BpeMeHHÓro 6brrua ^TOM 3eMnu: «Hto 3HanuT ^TO HaBogam.ee y^ac gBM^eHMa? u hto 3a HeBegoMaa cuna 3aKnroneHa b cmx HeBegoMbix cBeToM KOHax?» (233). EgBa nu He caMHM xapaKrepHMM aTpu6yT Kpw-naToro KOHa, M3Becraoro KaK cuMBon gymu, — ymu, KOTopwe b 3ay-hmbhoh necHe aMm,MKa onu^TBopam 3xo, cnoBO-OTBeT nycTMHHbix npocTpaHcTB. Bwpa^aacb ^urypanbHo: kohm 3gecb npegcraBnaroT gymeBHocrb, BocnpuHaTMM HyTpoM, cuMBonunecKu ycBoeHHMM npocTpaHcTBeHHWM KoHTMHyyM, to ecTB KoHTMHyyM gMC^O3M^MM, ymu ^e — aygMTMBHwe MHgeKcw-3HaKM gucno3uu,uu: KpwnaToro KOHa cnoco6Hw OTO^gecTBnaTb «ronoc gymu», ho numb Ha ocHOBe TOHanbHocTM HapogHoñ necHu. ronoc KaK MHgeKc gymeBHoro, ynacr-Horo npucyTcTBua, ogHaKO, npeo6pa3yeT ncuxunecKyro gaHHocrb b aKTMBHocTb — b «TBopnecKyro gymy». Bot rge cnegyeT ucKaTb Tafey «HeeedoMoñ cunu!». ÁKTyanu3upyrom,eeca b ^o^Me HanuHHoe 6wTMe, npoxogam.ee, ho He npomegmee BpeMa cocraBnaeT pe^epeHTHocrb 6a3OBOM MeTa^opw; Bbipa^eHuro ^TOM HanpaBneHHOM Bnepeg roTOB-hoctu, Bonnom,awm,eMca b nupunecKOM Mogyce ronoca, cny^MT o6pa3 KpwnaTwx KOHeM, b KOHeHHOM cneTe — cuMBon neTamero, npoxo-gamero, ho He npomegmero BpeMeHu (BpeMeHu npo^cca nucbMa). Co3gaHue BU3yanbHOM Mogenu BuguMwx, 3aTeM Bce 6onee HeBu-guMwx, nycTeromux, neTamux npocTpaHcTB cTaHOBMTca b Happa^nn HeBO3Mo»HMM; 3gecb — rpaHu^ bo3mo»hoctu Happa^uu, to ecTb bo3mo^hoctu paccKa3aTb o npoucxogameM. Ha MecTO HappaTuBHOM penpe3eHTau,MM npegMeTa roronb cTaBuT nocnegHee «nupunecKoe OTcTynneHue». TaKoe o6pa3OBaHue MeTa^opunecKon ceMaHTuKu, KOTopoe cny^MT ^opMupoBaHMW He croara, a gMC^O3M^MM cy6teKra 107 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a 10 n03TGMy M0»HG CHM-rarb GgHGcrGpGHHMM — xora m He Bno.He 6ecnGHBeHHWM — G6^acHeHMe, KGropoe ro.Kyer po.b rpGMKM, BMga B HeM napa.-.e.b nGHMMaHua n.arGHGM gymM KaK Kpw.arGM napHGM ynpa»KM (cm.: BaM-cKGn^ 1993: 401-403). a3WK0B0M caM0geaTe.bH0CTu. B MeTa^opuHecKoñ gucrpeccuu koh-KpeTU3upyeTca aBTonosTUHecKaa aKTya.bH0CTb, KOTopaa Hano.Ha-eT HeBuguMyw, y»acHyw npocrpaHCTBeHHyro nycTOTy T0Ta.bHWM 3ByHaHueM: Bce, hto geMcTBUTe.bH0 cymecTByeT b 6wtuu, mo»ho .umb c.wmaTb: «HygHWM 3bohom 3a.MBaeTca KO.OKO.bHMK, rpeMUT M CTaHOBMTCa BeTpOM pa30pBaHHWM B KyCKM B03gyx; .eTMT MMMO BCe, HTO HU eCTb Ha 3eM.e <...>» (233). «K0.0K0.bHUK» TpoMKM u b gpyrux TeKCTax roro.a ^urypupyeT KaK C.0B0, o6o3HaHarom.ee coo6m,eHue gymu, cepg^; k TOMy »e rypupyeT oh TaM npe»ge Bcero KaK cuMBO.uHecKaa npe3eHTau.ua TOCKM, TOM <|>yH^M0Ha.bH0M gMC^03M^MM, KOTopaa nuTaeT pyccKyw .MpMHeCKyro n033MW, — KOpHM 3T0M gMC^03M^MM Toro.b, KaK Mbl BM-ge.M, BWBoguT m3 ^.e^MHecK0M T0Ha.bH0CTM HapogHOM necHM. A Begb TpoMKa — co BceMM ee aTpu6yTaMu — T0»e K0HCTpyKn.ua, B3aTaa U3 HapOgHOM n033MM.10 nucaTe.b, pa6oTawmMM Hag co3gaHueM B0Ka.bH0M Moge.u npucyTCTBua b Mupe, a ogHOBpeMeHHO npegcraB.awm.MM Hucryw aKTya.bH0CTb aBTopcTBa — BwcKa3WBawmuMca 06 aBTopcTBe, koh-CTUTyupywmuM aBTopcTBO a3WK0BWM cy6teKT, — co3gaeT 3Ty aygu-TUBHyw Moge.b Bep6a.bH0, CTpeMUTca c.wmuMoe npeo6pa30BaTb b HMTaeMoe. 3agaHa 0gH03HaHHa: a3WK0Byw uHu^uaTUBy (BHyTpeH-Hww peHb), y»e Ha.MHecTBywmyw KaK MHgeKC b T0Ha.bH0CTM Hapog-HOM necHM, eMy Hy»H0 pa3BepHyTb b BwcKa3WBaHue, b HappaTMBHwM TeKCT m b nucbMeHHWM TeKCT ^o^Mw. ^T0 He c.egyeT paccMaTpu-BaTb KaK cge.aHHWM .oruHecKMM nyTeM BWBog: 06 3tom CBugeTe.b-CTByeT caM TeKCT: «3x, TpoMKa! nTun,a TpoMKa, kto Te6a BwgyMa.? 3HaTb, y 6oMKoro Hapoga tw Mor.a TO.bKO poguTbca, b tom 3eM.e, hto He .w6mt myTMTb, a poBHeM-r.agHeM pa3MeTHy.acb Ha no.-CBeTa <...>» (232). 108 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications Bem,B — TpoMKa — pe3y.BTaT Toro ^e o6pa3a geMcrBua, kotopbim eo3ga^ u eaHM. no3roMy fleMCTByrom,MM HenoBeK cnoco6eH o6,Be3flMTB nycTBiHHBie npocTpaHCTBa, ho ero «6omkoctb» — HaxogHMBocTB, pe-mMTe.BHOCTB, 6wcTpoTa — HaxoflMTca 3a npegenaMM TexHMHecKoM c^epw, hto y^e aBnaeTca npM3HaKoM bbicokom »M3Hecnoco6Hocm. 06o3HaneHHaa TaKMM o6pa3oM, Bon.om,eHHaa b co3g,aHHoM Bem,u ^M3Hecnoco6HocTB ecTB HenTo 6o.Bmee, HeM npogyKT onpegeneH-hom TexHunecKoM geaTe.BHocTu: oHa — cumbo. m o6pa3e^ ^M3He-cnoco6HocTM. To.bko nosTOMy oHa crana — Hepe3 nocpe^HunecrBo HapogHoM necHM — McropuHecKMM cmmbo.om y®:e ynoMaHyToM g,Mcno3Mn,MM. Ho TeM caMMM o6peTaeT peanBHocrB HeKaa HoBaa «^M3Hecnoco6HocTB» — ee gyxoBHoe npucyTCTBue b npou3BegeHM-ax pyccKoM nupunecKoM no33uu. He to.bko TpoMKy, ho m nupune-ckmm o6pa3 tpomkm, a3BiKoByro ^urypy KpwnaToM «nTMu,Bi tpomkm» co3ga. stot Ko.neKTMBHBiM cy6^eKT, kotopbim b xoge ucTopuu M3 cuMBo.a gymu npeo6pa3M.ca b MeTaMop^o3y Pycu. npeo6pa-3u.ca MMeHHo 6.arogapa ucKyccTBy roro.a: «He TaK nu u th, PycB, hto 6oMKaa Heo6roHMMaa TpoMKa, HecemBca?» (232-233). Bonpocu-TenBHaa MHTOHa^Ma 3gecB HanpaBneHa, Bo-nepBBix, Ha 3HaneHue co3gaHHoro cpaBHeHua: Hmo 3Muum ^mo naeoda^ee yMac deuMenue? u umo 3a neeedoMaa cuna 3aKnwHena e cux neeedoMux ceemoM komx? ^x, kohu, kohu, umo 3a kohu! Buxpu nu cudam e earnux ^pueax? HymKoe nu yxo ^opum eo ecaxoü eameü wunxe? (233). Bo-btophx — xoTa sto 3HaneHMe He cogep^MTca b TeKcre 3Kcn.Mn,MT-ho, — 3gecB CKpHTa noHTM gocnoBHaa ccBMKa Ha ^o^My üymKMHa «MeflHBiM BcagHMK»: 109 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a Kyda mu cmuernb, ^op^uù KOHb, H zde onycmuwb mu Konuma? O MOtyHuù enacmenuH cydbôu! He maK nu mu Had caMoù 6e3dHoù Ha eucome, y3doù Mene3Hoù Poccuw nodwn Ha duôu? roBopa o neTameM 0rHeHH0M K0He, nymKMH noKanu3yeT mctohhmk He3aypagoM cunw Hag 6e3gH0M, K0T0paa m aBnaeTca reHepupyromew cunow nuHHoro paccKa3a EBreHua o CBoeM npo3peHuu: «EBreHuw B3gporHyn. npoacHunucb / B HeM CTpamHo Mwcnu / Oh y3Han...». roronb ^MKCupyeT CTMMynupyromee BnuaHue TBopnecKow cunw Ha ymax K0Hew, yKa3wBaa TeM caMwM mctohhmk caMoocMwcneHua nucaTena, pacKpwBaromero nuHHoro aBTopcKoro npegHa3HaHeHua, cy6beKTa TeKCTa no3Mw: oh He BuguT, oh «cnwmuT» no33uro, bw30b nycTwHHoro unu onycTomaromero npocTpaHCTBa, cuMBona He6wTua. HymKoe nu yxo ^opum eo ecnxoù eameù wunxe? 3acnumanu c suwuhu 3HaK0Myw necHW, dpyMHo u pa3oM Hanpmnu MedHue ^py^u u, noumu He mpoHye KonumaMu 3eMnu, npeepamunucb e odHu eummymue nu-huu, nema.m,ue no eo3dyxy, u Muumcn ec% edoxHoeeman Eo^oM!.. Pycb, Kyda m Hecembca. mu? daù omeem. He daem omeema (233). Cy6beKT TeKCTa b co3gaHuu Mupa nosMw orarogt He orpaHUHUBa-eTca numb BM3yanbHow aHaToMuew geTanew, K0T0pwe MoryT 6wtb ono3HaHw b npocTpaHCTBe. Oh BwaBnaeT tot mx acneKT, KoTopww aKTMBM3upyeT «yxo», 30b HeBuguMoro, ho Bce »e HanunecTByromero, b 3BynaHMM, ^noro. ^eTanb conpuKacaeTca c ^.wim nepe3 3ByHaHue, Hepe3 nocpegcTBo T0HanbH0CTu «tockamboh necHM» — m, b stom 110 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications CMticne, aB.aeTca He ^arcropoM, ho KOHcrpyKTMBHBiM ^.eMeHT0M ^.oro. B 3T0M CMHC.e TOT, KTO ynpaB.aeT TpOMKOM (aMmUK), TpaHC-.upyeT HapogHyro necHro; ho c ^T0^0 MOMeHTa tpomkom ynpaB.aeT He MymuK, a kohm, Hecymue b KamgoM mu.Ke «HyTKoe yxo». TeM caMBiM roro.B tbopmt o6pa3 ucTOHHMKa BgoxHOBeHua (eme He 3a-KOHneHHOM, ho u aKT nucBMa pea.u3yrom,eM KaK ucropuro) ^o^Mw, tbopmt C0BepmeHH0 opuruHa.BHyro ^opMy a3BiK0B0M aKTMBHOCTM. Abtop, noHMMaeMBiM KaK paccKa3HMK, c.wmuT, hto PycB «He gaeT OTBeTa», nucaTe.B me C03gaeT ceMaHTMHecKyro Moge.B Toro, hto c.BimuTca u hto o6pam,aeTca b BugeHue, — He onTMHecKMM u.u ay-gMTMBHMM o6pa3 ero, ho MeTa^opy Ha a3BiKe pyccKOM npo3Bi, cy6t-eKT T0Ta.BH0r0 CTpeM.eHua c.BimaTB, Kpw.aToro KOHa. OopMy Cy6^eKTa a3BiK0TB0pHeCK0M — .UpUHeCKOM — BOCnpMMMHMBOCTM. KaK CBugeTe.BCTByeT npuBoguMaa Hume u,uTaTa, Kpw.aTwe kohm MeTa^opu3upyroT aKTMBHoe HaauHue ymeM, b c.yxe — cy6^eKT yHacTHO-noHMMaromero BHMMaHua. A y cugamero b ^KM^ame AbTopa — cepgu,e, CMMB0.M3upyromee «HeBuguMoro» BHyTpeHHero He.0BeKa, gBOMHMK Toro cymecrBa, K0T0pwM coo6maeT 3ByHaHuro necHM 3HaHeHue, eme He Bep6a.u3upoBaHHBiM cmbic.. TaKMM o6pa- 30M, cy6teKT, 3aMem,eHHBiM «ymaMM», c.BimuT u ocMBicnaeT 3ByK 6ygymero, Heo6xoguMoro g.a C03ugaHua ^o^Mw, «Haxogameroca b nyTM», pomgaromeroca c.0Ba, curHa.M3upyromero 0 Hacryn.e-hmm CBoeM T0Ha.BH0CTBro. A H0CMTe.B BHyTpeHHero He.0BeKa npeg-CTaB.eH cepg^M, geMOHcrpupyeT npucyTCTBue aBTopa, co3garomero TeKCT noHMMaHua u caM0C03HaHua, coBepmaromeroca Hepe3 necHro, TBopamero «.upuHecKue 0TCTyn.eHua». [...] hu umo He oóonbcmum u He ouapyem B3opa. Ho xaxaa. me Heno- cmumuMaa, maüHaa. cuna eneuem k me6e? noueMy cnumumca. 111 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a u pa3daemcñ ueMonnuo e ymax meoñ mocKnueañ, uecy^aaca no eceü dnuHe u mupuHe meoeü, om Mopñ u do Mopñ, necuñ? (207). OTcyTCTBue Bep6anBHoro OTBeTa He 03HanaeT, TaKuM 06pa30M, ot-cyTCTBua CMHCja, — cnoco6 6BiTua TyT Bcero íHmb He BBiCKa3aH, He uano^eH b CBa3H0M Buge. H KaK pa3 necHa u ecTB OTBeT: npono-3u^uu «HeBeflOMOM cunBi» npoTUBonocTaBneH MeguyM «3HaK0M0M necHu», to ecTB ^onBKnopHBm toh nupunecKoro ronoca KaK mctohhmk BgoxHOBeHua. Eonee Toro: «6o»ecTBeHHoro BgoxHOBeHua»! ^upunecKaa TOHanBHOCTB aBTopcKux OTcrynneHuM Torga Hanu-HaeT ^opMupoBaTB paccKa3WBaeMWM Mup, Korga 6punKa c repoeM Bwe3»aeT 3a ropogcKue BopoTa u nycKaeTca b nyTB no 6ecK0HenH0M gopore, rge, noKuHyB TpacKyro ropogcKyro MOCTOByro u nogHuMaacB k He6ecaM, OHa npeBpam,aeTca b neTarn,yro KpBinaTyro KonecHuny. H BMecTe c TeM ^T0 — He3aBepmeHHBiM nyTB nucaTena k C03gaHuro CBoero repoa, ycnoBueM gna KOToporo aBnaeTca o6peTeHue «MeTKoro cnoBa» («C0Kp0Bum,a»). TaKuM 06pa30M, ^opora BegeT k cnoBy. «Ta-kobo Ha Pycu nono^eHue nucaTena! BnponeM, ecnu cn0B0 u3 ynu^i nonano b KHury, He nucaTenB BuHOBaT, BuHOBaTBi nuTarenu [...]». npMH^n «coo6pa^eH&H» b npo3e Torosa flononHuM Ham aHanu3 yTBep^geHuaMu, B3aTBiMu u3 aBT0pcK0-ro npu3HaHua Torona. Ohu CBugeTenBCTByroT 0 tom, hto nepegana nogMeneHHwx geTanen — nepBBrn mar b ero TexHuKe TBopnecTBa. £ HUKo^^a umezo ue cosdaean e eooópaweuuu u He uMen ^mo^o ceoü-cmea. y Meuñ monbKo mo u euxoduno xopomo, nmo esñmo 6uno mhoü u3 deücmeumenbuocmu, u3 dauuux, Mue useecmuux. y^a^ueamb nenoeeKa ñ Mo^ monbKo mozda, Ko^^a Mue npedcmaenñnucb 112 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications caMue Menbmüwue nodpoÓHocmu ezo eHewnocmu. % HUK0^^a He nucan nopmpema, e cMucne npocmoü Konuu. % co3gaBaa nop-mpem, ho co3daean ezo ecnedcmeue cooúpaweHbñ, a He eooúpaweHbñ (fáonb 1986b: 420). «Coo6pa^eHBe» — eMKoe noHaTue, KOTopoe mo^ho ynogo6uTB uHTe-pa^uu, onuparomenca Ha caynaMHBie oTHomeHua npu3HaKoB; b ^TOM CMHC^e «coo6pa»eHue» u npoTMBocToMT «Boo6pa»eHuro», KoTopoe noKouTca Ha CBa3u npegcraBaeHuM uau o6pa3oB, Ha cuHTeTunecKoM cy^geHMM. «Coo6pa»eHBe» — He MMMeTMnecRaa, He aHaaoroBaa u He TeopeTunecKaa MogeaB. H3 «MeaBnanmux nogpo6HocreM» roroaB CTpeMuTca «yragwBaTB» Bcero HeaoBeKa. Oh ucxoguT u3 aKTa, a He u3 ^urypw: nacTB — ^TO oguH aKT ^aoro gencTBua, ero pa3oBoe npoaBaeHue. H He npocTo pa3oBoe, ho u — He-noBTopuMoe! B to BpeMa KaK npocrpaHcTBeHHBm o6pa3 geMcTByrom,eM ^urypw: pocT, ^opMa roaoBBi, cao^eHue, ^eT raa3 u Boaoc u t. g. — BMKa3MBaeT 6oaee mjm MeHee nocToaHHoe, y3HaBaeMoe egMHcTBo, gencTBua u BBicKa3BiBaHua ero Bcerga pa3oBBi u HenoBTopuMBi. B co-BepmeHuu gencrBua «HacTB», KoMnoHeHT, wcmmnoe v,enoe craHoBuTca y3HaBaeMHM KaK Mope b Kanae. Kanaa — To^e MopcKaa Boga, ho cno-co6Ha gencTBoBaTB no-gpyroMy, HeM gpyraa Kanaa uau HeM geBaTBin Baa. HanpuMep, oHa goa6uT KaMeHB, to ecTB cnoco6Ha pa3pymuTB cKa-ay — nogo6Ho ToMy, KaK nogHaTBie 6ypen BoaHBi cnoco6HBi nory6uTB Kopa6aB. B pe3yaBTaTe 3Toro BoccTaHaBauBaeTca 6htuhhmm cTaTyc Bem,u, ee poaB, BBinoaHaeMaa b Mupe gencrBua u b ero npoaBaeHuu, hto conpoBo^gaeTca poctom ee 3HaneHMa. TaRMM o6pa3oM, roroaB Bo3BoguT b paHr Bem,u xaaM, MeaoHB, aocKyToK 6yMaru — 6aarogapa ToMy, hto noKa3BiBaeT ux He npocTo KaK HacTB npocTpaHcTBeHHoro ^aoro: oh pereHepupyeT Bem,B BMecTe c cucreMoM ^yH^un ee Hacren. 113 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a TaKoM xygo»ecTBeHHHM MeTog npegno.araeT MCHepnHBarom.ee Hap-paTMBHoe H.eHeHue »M3HeHHHx ^aKTOB, — 6.arogapa TOMy, hto nu-caTe.B npoK.agHBaeT nyTB, BegymuM cocraBHtie HacTM m mx $yHKn,MM k a3HKy — k uepapxuM cnoco6a gyxoBHoro 6htms, goBoga go no.HOTH 6htmmhhm CTaTyc Bemu, hto Tpe6yeT ee HOBoro Ha3BaHua. BTopoM mar — HappaTUBHoe nocpegHMHecTBO, npuHeM c MHoro-KpaTHHM cy6teKTMBHHM nepexogoM. 3tom n,e.u c.y»u.a uHTeH-CMBHaa nepenucKa, b KOTopoM roro.B nocToaHHO npocu. y cbomx agpecaTOB ugeM, ucTopuM, KOTopte Mor.M 6h .eHB b 0CH0By cro»eTa. B geMCTBMTe.BH0CTM oh paccnpamuBa. napTHepoB no nepenucKe, kto m KaK BCTaBM. 6h b MCTopuro nogMeHeHHyro nogpo6H0CTB, KaK gpyrue o6tacHM.u 6h CBa3B yBugeHHOM mmm geTa.u c KaKUM-.u6o cbom-CTBOM («CTpaCTBro») M.M ^yH^MM 3T0M geTa.M B ^OpMUpOBaHMM m o^HKe »u3HeHH0M MCTopuu m o6pa3a. Ba»H0CTB SToro aB.eHua OTMeTM. y»e ^MxeH6ayM, onucaB ero b aHa.u3e CKa3a. roro.B 3Ha., hto nepn,enn,ueM «^arcroB» ynpaB.aeT B006pa»e-Hue, a B006pa»eHueM — HacTO geMcTByromue n0gc03HaTe.BH0 »e-.aHue, B0.a, n0Tpe6H0CTB («Hamu CTpacTM»). üosTOMy pea.BH0CTB, BOcnpuHMMaeMyro KaK $arcr, to ecTB BtrópaHHtm B006pa»eHueM 3.eMeHT, oh KaK nucaTe.B pacK.agtBaeT Ha TaKue HacTu-3.eMeHTH, go KOToptx onTMHecKoe C03ep^Hue y»e He cnoco6H0 npoHMKHyTB, — ho cnoco6H0 sto cge.aTB Bep6a.BHoe H.eHeHue. OTHomeHue 06-pa3a m BemM oh 3aMeHaeT OTHomeHueM c.0Ba m BemM. O6pa3 gaeT B03M0»H0CTB y.OBMTB B peHM CeMaHTMHeCKyM npe3em^MM Bem,M, a C.OBO — 3HaHeHue m cmhc. Bemu. KaK mh Buge.u, b TaKyro pe-npe3eHTau,uro npeBpaTu.ca hoc, KOToptiM Bon.om.aeT BHemHero, C0^Ma.BH0^0 He.0BeKa, 3anporpaMMupoBaHHoro Ha »a»gy B.acTu, ho TyT y»e ero uMa — Hoc (rocnoguH Hoc), m oh 03HaHaeT uHoro, BHCTynarom,ero b 60.ee bhcokom paHre HMHOBHUKa. 3to — gBOMHMK, 114 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications K0T0pMM aBnaeTca <£opMoM onu^TBopeHHoro, to ecTb nepexogamero B y^ac, ycyry6neHHoro CTpaxa. roronb, TaKuM 06pa30M, 3a npegenoM nogpo6H0CTeM 6epeT ucT0-puu u3 ®u3Hu; ero uHTepecyeT He T0nbK0 to, hto ecTb TaM, ho u to, KaK noHuMaeTca pa3HMMu BHCKa3HBaHMaMM, M3na^awm1MMM cw^eT, «b pa3Hwx c^epax ku3hu» to, hto ecTb TaM. n0-uH0My b CaHKT-ne-Tep6ypre, n0-uH0My b npoBuHnuanbHoM ropoge, n0-uH0My Ha xyTope, n0-uH0My Ha nocToanoM gBope, n0-uH0My b 0$M^ManbH0M npucyT-CTBuu, n0-uH0My b n,epKBu, u coBceM n0-uH0My Ha ^opore. Ha ypoBHe HenoBeKa «»u3Hb» — He T0nbK0 coMaTunecKaa, BereTaTuBHaa unu MeHTanbHaa peanbHocTb, He T0nbK0 geMcTBuTenbHocTb b omymeHuax u o6pa3ax. ^T0 — geMcTBuTenbHocTb, n0CT0aHH0 paccKa3MBaeMaa u b xoge paccKa3a ocMticnaeMaa, to ecTb o6pa3 ynacTHoro 6tiTua, K0T0pWM KaK pa3 u B03B0guTCa B paHr 0CB0eHH0M, nponuTaHH0M CMMC.0M ®u3Hu npu noMomu aKTa nuHHoro paccKa3a, npu noMomu a3tiK0B0M caM0geaTenbH0CTu cy6^eKTa. Ha6nrogaeMtie nogpo6H0-ctu npu 3T0M nonynawT B03M0^H0CTb nogHaTbca b paHr «®hbwx ^aKT0B» 6narogapa T0My, hto b paccKa3WBaeMwx nogpo6H0CTax pac-KpwBaeTca 0TH0meHue n0CTynK0B paccKa3HuKa k n0Ka3aHH0M b ero paccKa3e Bemu. B np0TuB0Bec HappaTuBHtiM o6pa3aM CKynocTu, b TeKCTe no3-MM, to ecTb b nosTunecKoM ceMaHTunecKoM TpaHcnuTepanuu, ca-Mon,enbHaa CKynocTb ÏÏjwmKHHa npegcTaeT He KaK MeHTanbHtrn Bonpoc, He KaK M3o6pa»eHMe Hu3meM CTyneHu gerpaganuu neno-BeKa. HanpoTuB, none ceMaHTunecKux uHHoBanuM cnoco6cTByeT 060CH0BaHuro hobom npo6neMti, K0T0paa cogep^uT b ce6e u Bonpoc, KacawmuMca 6tiTua. KaK0B CMMcn CKynocTu b 6mtuu? A6conwTHaa, ocMMcneHHaa cpegcTBaMu nosTuKu «CKynocTb» 03HanaeT CBegé-Hue npocTpaHCTBeHHoro HanuHHoro 6wTua k MuHuMyMy. CKyKo^eH 115 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a MaTepua.BHWM MMHMMyM npocTpaHcTBeHHocTM, rge ne.OBeK y»e He MO^eT 6bitb ono3HaH c noMomtro 3HaKOMBix xpoHOTonunecKux npM3HaKOB, onTMnecKMM nyTeM: Ha6.rogaTe.nB y»e He MO»eT onpege-.mtb, kto nepeg hmm, «My»MK u.u 6a6a», khwhhmk m.m KnronHu^ (108). Ho b to »e BpeMa ^TO — MaKcuMyM BpeMeHHoro KOHTMHyyMa: oneHB crapBiM, «gpeBHMM», nepe^uBmuM Bce BpeMeHa; no Moge.u a3WKOBoro co6wTua 3ro — crymeHue BpeMeHu b npocTpaHcrBe. Ero a..eropuu: K.ron u nacwi — r.aBHBie arpu6yTBi n.romKMHa. C tom 6o.BmoM pa3HM^M no oraomeHMro k cpegHeBeKOBOMy cuMBO.M3My, nTO nacw ^TM — He xogaT, He noKa3BiBaroT TeneHMe BpeMeHM. n.rom-kmh — cipa» ucKOHHoro BpeMeHM, He Toro BpeMeHM, KOTopoe mo»ho TpaTMTB u.u cnuTaTB. Hacw cTapuKa He noKa3BiBaroT o6wnHoe, Tpu-Bua.BHoe BpeMa: BegB oho g.a Hero, TaK cKa3aTB, «kohhmaocb», Bce MOMeHTw ero co6paHw b ogHy KynKy. n.romKMH He cmotpmt Ha nacw, He M3MepaeT BpeMa — oh xpaHMT nacw KaK coKpoBume, hto6bi noTOM 3aBemaTB KOMy-Hu6ygB. Mo»eT 6bitb, HunuKOBy (KaK oh co6upa.ca BHana.e), u.u reporo, kotopwm npugeT Ha Mecro HunuKOBa, reporo ^o^MH. 06pa3 co3gaHHoro roro.eM cTpa»a BpeMeHM — cy6BeKT xpa-HeHua npoxogamero, ho He npomegmero BpeMeHM. mo»ho cKa3aTB — cy6'BeKT ^o^Mw Ha.unHoro BpeMeHM. HACTb BTOPAfl cmhc^ CMexa b KOMeflHH (HMTaTB tckct «PeBM3opa») CBoeo6pa3HWM oKa3WBaeTca M3ynaeMoe 3gecB aB.eHMe cy6BeKTHocTM b c.ynae cn,eHunecKux »aHpoB, t.k. b rpynne ^TMx npoM3BegeHMM rocnogcTByeT gua.orunecKoe pa3BepTWBaHue geMcrBua. Oco6eH-ho 3HanuTe.BHa 4>yH^ua napa6a3w b CMTya^Max HapymeHua gpa-MaTunecKoro guanora. H6o OHa c.y»MT nepeKnroneHuro M3 c^epw 116 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications KoMunecKon npe3eHTan,uu — npu noMom,u cpegcTB TeaTpanBHoro ucKyccTBa — b nnaH ocMwcneHua ero Ha3HaneHua c u,enBro pacc-kpbitb cMwcn cMexa b ero B3auMogeMcTBuu co cTpaxoM. TaK, b gpa-MaTypruu rorona KoMegua gon»Ha nopo»gaTB KaTapcuc (BMecTo «nerKoro cMexa»), paBHBm no cBoeMy 3^eKTy KnaccunecKoM rpene-ckom Tpareguu mmchho 6narogapa unrepa^uu ceMaHTUKu cMexa u ceMaHTUKu crpaxa. O TaKoM, gBycTopoHHeM Bonnom,eHuu xygo»e-cTBeHHoro cMwcna cBugeTenBcTByeT xoTa 6bi u3peneHue: «...o3upaTB ckbo3b BuguMWM Mupy cMex u He3puMwe, HeBegoMwe eMy cne3Bi» (roronB 1985c: 125). HappaTUBHaa 3agana peanu3yeTca «peBU3opoM u paccKa3aMu», Torga KaK aHappaTUBHaa — co6cTBeHHo c^HunecKaa — b ucnoBe-ganBHoM cnoBe ropogHUHero, peanu3oBaHHoM b »aHpe ny6nuHHoro caMooTHeTa. Cp.: «(B ucmynneHuu.) Bot cMoTpuTe, cMoTpuTe, BecB Mup, Bce xpucTuaHcTBo, Bce cMoTpuTe, KaK ogypaneH ropogHUHUMi ,%paKa eMy, gypaKa cTapoMy nogneny! (rpo3um caMoMy ce6e xynaxoM.)» (roronB 1985a: 88). HcnoBeganBHoe cnoBo cny»uT npeo6pa3oBaHuro gencTByro^ero Ha cn,eHe nun,a b aBTopa Bep6anBHon aBTopeBU3uu, b cy6teKTa caMonoHUMaHua. .Hmh.o npu stom npeo6pa3yeTca b Ma-cKy («po»y»), oTpa»eHue kotopom Bgpyr paccMoTpen u onucan caM ropogHUHUM: «rnynwn 6apaH», . 119 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a Co3ugaHue Kope^epeHu,uM, ogHaKO, ^TUM caMtiM He ucnepnti-BaeTca, nocKonbKy KOMegua Heo»ugaHHO npeBpamaeTca b gpaMy, npuneM mmchho TaM, rge cu,eHunecKoe gencrBue npuocraHaBnuBa-eTca u npu noMomu HeMOM KapTuHti npeo6pa3yeTca b MeTa^opu-HecKoe 3aMemeHue — b aBTonopTpeT ny6nuKu: «Bca rpynna, Bgpyr nepeMeHuBmu nono»eHue, ocTaeTca b OKaMeHeHuu» (roronb 1985a: 89). ^nb nepeMeHti 3aKnronaeTca b tom, hto6bi npou3BecTu ^^eKT 3HaKa u aKTa curHu^uKau,uu HOBoro cMwcna. A uMeHHO, cMwcna cymecTBOBaHua b nenoBenecKOM Mupe TeaTpanbHoro ucKyccTBa u KOMunecKoro acneKTa ucTopuu. npu 3tom nepcoHa»u gon»HBi nepeBonnoTuTbca ga»e «b BonpocuTenbHWM 3HaK, o6pam,eHHBiM k 3puTenaM» (TaM »e, 90). KaMeHHtm cTon6, ynogo6neHHtm Bonpo-cuTenbHOMy 3HaKy, kotophm BonnomaeTca b caMOM KOHKpeTHOM ^e-HunecKOM peanbHocTu 6narogapa TenecHOM pe^pe3eHTa^uu, cny»uT nnacTunecKuM curHanoM HegocTaTKa ugeHTuHHocTu gencTByromux nuu,; Ka»gaa 3acrtiBmaa ^urypa noKa3WBaeT oco6tm npu3HaK xa-paKTepa — «nu^Mepue», «nsuBHH onu^TBopeHHMM o6MaH» u t. g. (roronb 1985b: 339). B ^TOM cucreMe no»Hwx crpaTeruM noBegeHua, cnegoBaTenbHO, 3aKnroneH nogcnygHWM Bonpoc o npupoge Hacro-amen nenoBenecKOM ugeHTuHHocru, KOTopaa MO»eT 6wTb noHaTa b paMKax nuTepaTypHOM aHTpononoruu, 3ano»eHHon b OHTonoruu xygo»ecTBeHHoro npou3BegeHua. npo3peHue ropogHunero HacrynaeT He Torga, Korga oh otkpo-eT ce6e ^uktubhhh cTaTyc «peBu3opa», a Torga, Korga ocMwcnuT: b HeM »e, HaKOHe^ cMwcn «uHKorHuTO» b noBegeHuu HenoBeKa Boo6me? B HeM »e 3aKnronaeTca Tafea ero cymecTBOBaHua? PeBu-3ua gymu npou3BoguTca nyTeM HappaTUBU3a^uu, npu noMomu nocrpoeHua ucTopuu u Bwpa6oTKu ^pe3eHTa^uu stom ucTopuu b a3WKe paccKa3WBaHua u noKa3WBaHua, npu noMomu 3HaKOBOM 120 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications ^arcrypti c^HMHecKoro MCKyccTBa. KoMeguro Heo6xogMMO ocbomtb, cge,aTB «cbomm» TeKCTOM «o ce6e», t. k. 6e3 ^T0^0 mara b MHTep-npeTau,MM TeKCTa xygo»ecTBeHHBiM cmbic, He MO»eT npoaBMTBca MMeHHO KaK MHTepHa,M3OBaHHBiM BHyTpeHHeM peHBro — MOM — «OTBeTHBiM CMHCJ». Mm BMge,M, hto MeTa^opa OTO»gecTB,aeT peBM3opa c cy6teKTOM nepcoHa,BHoro HappaTMBa, paccKa3HMKa m HMTaTe,a TeKCTa a-pac-CKa3a. HHKorHMTO »e b n,aHe ^MrypaTMBHOCTM TeKCTa noKptiBaeT c eMaHTMKy 0HT0,0rMHecK0M Henp03paHH0CTM MHgMBMga. CurHa,OM pa3pemeHMa TaMHti c,y»MT «ko,oko,bhmk» («Hama npocHyBmaaca coBecTB» — TaM »e, 35l). ^T0T aTpu6yT nTM^i-TpoMKM ecTB cerMeHT «,upMHecKoro TeneHua», BHegparom,eroca b HappaTMBHtiM TeKCT caTupunecKoro noBecTBOBaHua, t. e. curaa, 3apo»geHua hobom »aH-pOBOM MOga,BHOCTM, a MMeHHO nOSMBi. H BMeCTe C TeM 3TO 3HaK aBT0n03TMHeCKMx MOHO,OrOB O KpM3MCe aBTOpCTBa CaTMpMKa. OTCTy-n,eHMa 3gecB 0Ka3WBaroTca «3epKa,OM», o6pam,eHHBiM cy6^eKTOM nosMoreHHoro gucKypca Ha paccKa3HMKa caTupunecKoro noBecTBO-BaHua. B to »e BpeMa nucBMeHHtrn TeKCT agpecyeT co6wTue Kpu-3Mca HMTaTe,ro Ha ypoBHe MeTa^opunecKMx gurpeccMM nosMti. TaM oh HMTaeT: hto-to «BenHo 3OByrn.ee, HeyMo,Karom,ee bo Bcro »m3hb» (roro,B l985c: 228) 3aK,ronaeTca b 3BOHe KO,OKO,BHMKa. HcTOHHMK 3BynaHMa roro,B Haxogu, b 3,erMnecK0M TOHa,BHO-CTM pyccKOM HapogHOM necHM, b KOTopoM c,wmuTca aBTopy no3-mm «HeBegoMaa cu,a». C,eg0BaTe,BH0, caMonoHMMaHue g0,»H0 npoxoguTB nog 3HaKOM ocBoeHua TeKCTa no3MH KaK 06H0B,eHua Tpagun,MM stom necHM. 3boh KO,OKO,BHMKa — sto ane,,aTMBHBiM 3HaK, BBegeHHBiM, hto6bi «b MMHyTw yeguHeHHwx 6eceg c caMMM C060M, yr,y6MTB BOBHyrpB co6cTBeHHoM gymu ceM Ta»e,tiM Bonpoc: "A HeT ,m m bo MHe KaKOM-HM6ygB nacTM HMHMKOBa"» (TaM »e, 23l). 121 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a C.egoBaTe.bHO, peBU3ua aBTopcTBa Heu36e»H0 go.»Ha 6wTb npeg-MeTOM Happa^MM, KOTopaa b cu.y 3tom MHTe^uu k aBTope<£epeH^MM ycTpeM.aeTca k »aHpaM nepcoHa.bHoro noBecTBOBaHua. Ha ^Ty gopory 30BeT KO.OKO.bHUK u b «PeBU3ope». Pa3teguHUB ecTecTBeHHyro, K0HBeHH,u0HanbHyro CBa3b Me»gy geMcTByromuM .uuom u ero nceBgouMeHeM, ropogHUHeMy npugeTca ycTaHOBUTb HOByro napa„e.b nog B.uaHueM npo3peHua. Pa3yMeeTca, oh go.»eH GnG3HaTb b HGCMTe.e mhkgthmtg nGTeHn,Ma.bHGrG aBTopa: «Bgh gh Te-nepb no BceM gopore 3a.uBaeT KO.OKO.bHUKOM! Pa3HeceT no BceMy CBeTy ucTopuro; Ma.o Toro hto noMgemb b nocMemume — HaMgeTca me.Konep, 6yMaroMapaKa, b KOMeguro Te6a BCTaBUT» (TaM »e, SS). HMeHHO aBTop xygo»ecTBeHHoro npoM3BegeHua HeceT 4>yH^uro «peBU3opa», no6y»garom,ero HUTaTe.a u 3puTe.a yHUTbca CMeaTbca Hag C060M, t. k. »aHp KOMeguu, no roro.ro, TO.bKO b 3tom cnynae gocTuraeT CBoeM ^.u: 6e3 npo3peHua HeT KaTapcuca. Be3 CKpwTwx c.e3 HeT npogyKTMBHoro CMexa. roro.b OT.MHa. «nycTOM» m «KomyH-CTBeHHWM» CMex OT CMexa, «poguBmeroca ot .ro6Bu k He.0BeKy» (ro-ro.b i9S5b: 357). Ha ypoBHe 6wtobom »u3hu mw o6Hapy»uBaeM KaK «K.eBeTy», TaK m «go6poTy», t. e. npegMeT HpaBCTBeHHOM ^hhoctm. B ucKyccTBe CMexy npugaeTca xapaKTep gua.0ruHH0CTu u ^o^Tu-HecKUM CMWC., t. k. b KOMeguu npegMeTOM aB.aeTca caM ^eHOMeH CMexa — cMex caM no ce6e KaK pe.eBaHTHwM a3WK no OTHomeHuro k CMticny, 0C03HaHH0My caMonoHUMaHueM b aKTe HTeHua. KaK no-^TUHecKMM gucKypc KOMegua npegcTaB.aeT C060M BTopyro CTeneHb CMexa. CMex 0 CMexe — CKa3a. 6w BaxTUH. OHT0.0ruHecKUM cmwc. CMexa pacKpwBaeTca TO.bKO Hepe3 nocpegcTBO xygo»ecTBeHHoro TeKCTa, Hepe3 K0HKpeTU3a^uro «a3WKa CMexa». npaBga, gaHHoe aB.eHue He OTopBaHO ot noHUMaHua npupo-gw He.0BeKa, KOTopwM M0»eT npu noMomu KOMeguu HaMTu CBoro 122 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) «- Echoes of Vérifications MgeHTMHHOCTB: «Oh [cMex] gaH mmchho Ha to, hto6bi yMeTB nocMe-aTBca Hag co6om, a He Hag gpyruM» (TaM ^e, 357). CMex go.n^eH 6bitb AByHanpaB^eHHWM u Kope^epeHTHBiM, uHane Bwm^a 6bi «HpaBoy-HMTe^BHaa nponoBegB», pa3ge.narom.aa »uBoe eguHcrBO Ha cy6'BeKT u Ha o6teKT CMexa. «KoMegua Torga 6bi c6u.nacB Ha a.n.neropuro...» (TaM ^e, 354). HcKyccTBO KOMeguu npec^egyeT c^e^M<£MHecKyro ^.hb: npeKpaTMTB aBTOMaTM3M ^TOM 06BIHH0M, nOHTM npupOgHOM cR^OHHO-ctu ne^OBeKa ucKaTB «bo BceM HpaBoyneHBa g,na dpyzax, a He g^a ce6a <...> BegB nocMeaTBca mbi ^ro6uM Hag gpyruMu, a He Hag co6om...» (Ibid, 355). Bot noneMy roro^B n^aHupoBa^ bk^whutb b paMKu po^u ropog-Hunero BTopyro, y^e He Bep6a.nBHyro, a, TaK cKa3aTB, coMaTunecKyro napa6a3y, npuneM b Kanecrae caMoro nocnegHero, MapKupoBaHHoro ^ecra b KOMeguu: «He gypHO nepBOMy aKTepy ocTaBuTB Ha BpeMa cBoro no3y u nocMOTpeTB caMOMy HecKO^BKO pa3 Ha 3Ty KapTuHy b Ka-necTBe 3puTe^a.» (Ibid, 341). V 123 ärpäd koväcs ► K BonpocaM MeTanosTMKM roro^a ^MTepaTypa bejmh, AHflPEH, 1934: Macmepcmeo fäom. ^eHMHipag: 0rH3. BAHCKon®, mhxah^, 1993: Cwmem fäonn. Mop$ono^M. Hdeonozua.. KoHmeKcm, MocKBa: PagucK. verč, Ivan, 2016: -HuTepaTypHaa ^TMKa KaK npaKcuc xygomecTBeHHoro MwmaeHHH. Verifiche — Proverjanja — npoeepxu. Trieste: Edizioni Unversita di Trieste, 2016. 187-220. roronb, h. b., 1984: Hoc. Co6p. con. e 7 m. T. 3. M.: XygomecTBeHHaa .MTepaTypa. 38-62. roronb, h. b., 1985a — Peemop // Toranb H. B. Co6p. con. b 7 t. T. 4. M., XygornecTBeHHaa ^MTepaTypa. roronb, h. b., 1985b: npegyBegoM.neHue g.na Tex, KOTopwe nome^a^M 6ti ctirpaTB KaK c.negyeT PeBM3opa. Co6p. con. e 7 m. T. 4. M.: XygomecTBeHHaa ^MTepaTypa. roronb, h. b., 1985c: MepTBtie gymu.Coöp con. e 7 m. T. 5. M.: XygomecTBeHHaa .nuTepaTypa. roronb, h. b., 1986a: HeTtipe nucBMa k pa3Htm to^m no noBogy «MepTBtix gym». Co6p. con. e ceMU moMax. T. VI. MocKBa. 240-253. roronb, h. b., 1986b: (ABTopcKaa ucnoBegt). Co6p. con. e ceMU moMax. T. VI. MocKBa. 406-441. kobah, APnAfl, 1994: TeKcT m Mup «3anucoK cyMacmegmero». nepcoHanbHoe uoeecmeoeaHue. nyrnKUH, ^onb, Aocmoeecxuü. (Slavische Literaturen. Texte und Abhandlungen. Herausg. von Wolf Schmid. Band 7). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 11-58. KOBAH (KOVACS, ArPAD), 2005a: «TaMHcTBeHHBiM 3HaK» y ^ocToeBcKoro. Slavistična revija 53. 2005/3. 261-281. 124 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications kobah (kovacs, arpad), 2005b: Angustia: TocKa y ^ocToeBCKoro. Russica Hungarica, Hccnedoeanua. no pyccKou numepamype u xynbmype, PycucmuKa e EydanemmcKOM yHueepcumeme uMeHu ^meewa XopaHda. EyganemT, MocKBa. 100-125. AOTMAH, ro. m., 1968: npo6^eMa xygo^ecTBeHHoro npocrpaHCTBa b npo3e romna. Tpydbi no pyccKou u cnaeancKoU $unono^uu. T. 11: EumepamypoeedeHue. TapTy. 5-50. de man, paul, 1996: The Concept of Irony. Aesthetic Ideology. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. 163-184. MEPEKKOBCKHH, flMHTPHH, 1906: ^ORb U Hepm. HccnedoeaHue. MocKBa. HABOKOB, BiAflHMH?, 2010: HuKo^aM roro^B. Eexuyu no pyccKou numepamype. Cn6.: A36yKa-KnaccMKa. 43-112. TonopoB, BiAflHMHP, 1995: Ano^oraa n^romKMHa: Bem,B b ampono^mpMHecKoM nepcneKTMBe. Mu$. Pumyan. Cumbor. Opa3. MocKBa: nporpecc. 7-111. $^opehckhh, CBam,. nABE^, 1985: 06paTHaa nepcneKTMBa. y eodopa3denoe mucru. Co6p. Coh. I. Cmambu no ucxyccmey. Paris: YMCA-PRESS. 117-192. $PEHflEHBEPr, o.M., 1997: ^o^mum cwwema u waupa (1936). MocKBa: ^a6upMHT. 125 árpád kovács ► K BonpocaM MeTanosTMKM roro^a Sommario Nell'articolo si affronta la questione principale della poética di Gogol', ovvero la correlazione tra organizzazione narrativa e poetica della prosa, tanto nell'aspetto del divenire del soggetto del discorso lette-rario, quanto sul piano dell'interrelazione tra generi nella formazio-ne testuale: tra poema e romanzo (Le anime morte), racconto elegiaco e satira (Il cappotto), novella e grottesco (Il naso), commedia e racconto in prima persona (L'Ispettore generale). Il primo a impostare tali questioni dal punto di vista della poetica della prosa è stato Boris Èjchenbaum nell'antologico saggio su "Il Cappotto", in cui lo studioso muove un problema nuovo, segnatamente quello della funzione dello skaz nel testo narrativo. Si tratta di quelle digressioni nella struttura della narrazione che bloccano lo svolgersi della fabula epica, cosa che permette di incuneare nel testo "digressioni liriche", che qui interpretiamo sul piano semantico dal punto di vista della parabasi. In relazione a questa problematica offriamo un'analisi de "Il Cappotto" in cui si istituisce un isomorfismo (coerenza semantica) tra la presentazione "a skaz" (a-narrativa) del nome del protagonista e il testo del racconto nel suo insieme. Anche la specificità di genere di Le anime morte consiste in un'orga-nizzazione bilaterale del testo, nell'interazione tra principi narrativi e anarrativi nella costruzione del discorso letterario. Problema a parte è rappresentato dal cambio di modalità sul piano delle diverse forme di parabasi. Non è un caso che questa composizione assolutamente unica abbia provocato una moltitudine di incomprensioni e di giudizi criti-ci. È indicativo che Gogol' ritenesse inevitabile avvicinarsi al problema dal punto di vista della poetica della prosa: "Io avevo previsto che tutte le digressioni liriche nel poema sarebbero state interpretate in modo 126 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Vérifications erroneo. Di questo è colpevole la mancanza di abitudine nell'esaminare in profondità la struttura di un'opera" (Gogol' 1986, 242). Riguardo alla "struttura" lo scrittore si riferiva agli intervalli in cui il testo si piega alla modalità che lui definí "lirica". In questi monologhi dello Scrittore regna una disposizione di nostalgia, quale si incarna nell'intonazione della presentazione linguistica del testo e nelle enunciazioni autopoetiche sulla correlazione tra poema e prosa nel romanzo. Vladimir Nabokov, parlando della genialità della creazione linguistica in Gogol', riconobbe quale innovazione più originale proprio l'intonazione delle digressioni. Al livello degli intervalli si realizza la presentazione linguistica del senso poetico e della voce del soggetto del discorso; nell'intonazione si incarna la valutazione di tale senso ("nostalgia", "riso visibile al mondo e lacrime a esso invisibili, ignote"). Tale carattere soggettivo (modalità elegiaca del parlante in un testo narrativo) si svela "in uscita" del discorso e non "in ingresso", giacché la soggettività si costituisce nella dimostrazione dell'atto di scrittura dell'attività linguistica dello Scrittore. Attività in Gogol' bilaterale: il principio discreto guida la disposizione dell'intreccio e la narrazione (aspetto narrativo), la di-gressione metaforica (per esempio, la semantica della Strada o della Trojka) - le innovazioni semantiche (aspetto linguistico). 127 àrpàd kovàcs ► K BonpocaM MeTanosïMKM roro^a Ârpâd Kovâcs Ârpâd Kovacs, professor emeritus of the Hugarian Academy of Sciences and the University of Pannonia, the author of essays in Hungarian, Russian and world literature, and literary theory. Selected publications: PoMaH gocroeBCKoro. OntiT ^o^TMKM ^aHpa [Dostoevsky's Novel. The Genre in Poetical View] (1985), Personalnoje povestvovanije. Puškin, Gogol, Dostoevskij [Personal Narration. Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky] (1994), Diszkurziv poétika [Discursive Poetics] (2004), Prozamû és elbeszélés [Prose Work and Narration] (2010), Versbe irt szavak [Words Written in Verse] (2011), Az irodalmi esemény [Literary Event] (2013). 128 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications 129 doi - 10.13137/2283-5482/28126 KapaM3HH h Pycco (o noBecTH «Mon HcnoBegb») Karamzin and Rousseau (about the story «My confession») $ O. M. rOHHAFOBA / O. M. GONCHAROVA - olg2805i956@yandex.ru slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications B craTte npegcraBaeHa MHTepnpeTa-^MS noBecTM KapaM3MHa KaK TeKCTa, noaeMM3Mpywm;ero c aHTponoaoraeM Pycco. HHTeaaeKTya^BHHM flMaaor c MfleaMM Pycco 6bm npegcraBaeH m b gpyrux pyccKMx .KMTepaTypHBix TeKCTax BpeMeHM, npeflcraBMWmux o6m;yw TeHfleH^MW pyccKoM mhcih k ^opMMpoBaHMM co6cTBeHHoro npeg-craBaeHMS o neaoBeKe. B ^TOM KoHTeK-CTe noBecTt «Mos McnoBegB» Mo^eT 6mTB noHSTa KaK TeKCT, CBS3aHHBIM C pa3BMTMeM pyCCKoM MHMH ^^OXM, c co3gaHMeM ^Maoco^CKMx napaMe-TpoB flMCKypca MfleHTMHHoCTM. H. M. KAPAM3HH, ».-». PYCCO, B3AHMOCB33B .HTEPATYPBI H ®H.OCO$HH, ®H.OCO$CKAa AHTPono.norHa, HcnoBEflAaBHHH flHCKYPC, nOBECTB «MO3 HCnOBEflB» The article presents the interpretation of N. Karamzin's story as a text, which arque with Rousseau's anthropology. The intellectual dialogue with Rousseau's ideas was also presented in other Russian literary texts of the time, representing the general tendency of Russian thought to form its own idea of man. In this context, the novel My confession can be understood as the text that is associated with the development of Russian thought of the era, with the creation of philosophical parameters of the identity discourse. N. M. KARAMZIN, J.-J. ROUSSEAU, RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY, PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, CONFESSIONAL DISCOURSE, THE NOVEL MY CONFESSION 131 O. M. rOHHÄPOBÄ - KapaM3UH u Pycco (o noBecTu «Moa ucnoBeflb») HHTepec H. M. KapaM3uHa k TBopnecTBy u .uhhoctu Pycco xopomo u3BecTeH u He pa3 o6cy»ganca b pyccKoM KpuTuKe, ny6nu-^MCTMKe u uccneg0BaTenbCK0M nuTepaType. geMcTBuTenbHo, KaK no-Ka3an W. M. .floTMaH, KapaM3uH oTnunanca ^unoco^CKoM ^pygM^MeM, u uMa «»eHeBCKoro rpa^gaHuHa» n0CT0aHH0 npucyTCTByeT Ha CTpa-hu^x ero TeKCT0B (cm. ^0TMaH i9S7). Eme b «nucbMax pyccKoro ny-TemecTBeHHuKa» oh B0CT0p»eHH0 nucan o Pycco, ero npou3BegeHuax u «HcnoBegu». HanpuMep. «C HeonucyeMMM ygoBonbCTBueM nuTan a b ^eHeBe cuu 'Confessions', b K0T0ptix TaK »ubo u3o6pa»aeTca gyma u cepn^e Pycco. <...>. ,%x ero napun Hago mhow» (KapaM3uH, I, 22S). OgHaKo 3T0 He oTMeHano u noneMunecKoro 0TH0meHua KapaM-3uHa k ugeaM Pycco. y»e b «Arnae» (i794) - anbMaHaxe, 0Tpa3uBmeM ^unoco^CKoe B3pocneHue nucaTena, 6m. 03ByneH Bonpoc o np0TuB0-penuBocTu Pycco. «OTnero ^aH-^aK Pycco HpaBuTca HaM co BceMu cboumu cna6ocTaMu u 3a6ny»geHuaMu? OTnero nw6uM mm nuTaTb ero u Torga, Korga oh MenTaeT unu 3anyTMBaeTca b npoTuBopenuax?» (KapaM3uH, II, 62). 3gecb ®e 6tina 0ny6nuK0BaHa u 6onbmaa CTaTba KapaM3uHa - «HenTo 0 HayKax, ucKyccTBax u npocBemeHuu», npaMo u cepbe3H0 ^oneMM3MpoBaBmaa c ugeaMu Pycco. Eme 6onee noneMuHHMM CTaH0BuTca 0TH0meHue KapaM3uHa k Pycco b Hanane lSoo-x rogoB. B craTbe «npuaratie Bugwi, Ha-ge^gti u »enaHua HMHemHero BpeMeHu» (lS02) oh pa3MwmnaeT 06 «y»acH0M» $paH^3CK0M peBonro^MM u genaeT BWBog 0 tom, hto 0Ha - aBunacb uToroM ^unoco^CKoM geaTenbHocru, u, CBepmuBmucb, 0K0HHaTenbH0 «o6tacHuna ugeu». Hx cyTb KapaM3uH BuguT b tom, hto «Bce Heo6wKH0BeHHwe yMw CTpacTHo »enanu BenuKux nepeMeH», «Be3ge o6Hapy»uBanocb KaK0e-T0 BHyTpeHHee HeygoBonbCTBue; nwgu <...> Bugenu 0gH0 3no», a «npoHu^TenbHtie Ha6nwgaTenu o»uga-nu 6ypu; Pycco u gpyrue npegcKa3anu ee». Bce stu «yMCTBeHHwe» 132 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications o»ugaHua 3aK0HHunucb TeM, hto «rpoM rpaHyn bo OpaHu,Mu» m «MW Bugenu u3ganu y»acw no»apa» (KapaM3UH, II, 2i4, 2i5). OgHaKo nonwTKa onpegeneHua caMocToaTenbHow ^unoco^CKow ^03M^MM KapaM3MHa no 0TH0meHuro k Hacneguro Pycco 3aTpygHe-Ha pagoM ^arcropoB. Bo-nepBwx, CHMCxoguTenbHWM 0TH0meHueM k pyccKow ^unoco^MM XVIII BeKa, He C03gaBmew, KaK npuHaTo chm-TaTb, CTpowHwx cucTeM, yneHuw m mKon. Bo-BTopwx, CBoeo6pa3ueM TBopnecKux npaKTMK KapaM3MHa: mx .MTepaTypH0-xyg0»ecTBeHHwe ^opMw, TpaflMn,M0HH0 BKnronaeMwe b paMKM ceHTUMeHTanbHow scre-TMKM, 3anacTyro CTaH0BaTca cepte3HWM npenaTCTBueM gna aHanu3a ^unoco^CKow ceMaHTMKM TeKCTa. HecnynawHo B. B. 3eHbK0BCKMw b «HcTopuM pyccKow ^unoco^MM» nucan o ^un0C0^CK0M 3K.eKTU3-Me KapaM3MHa m CHUTan ero numb «npegcTaBMTeneM scTeTunecKoro ryMaHM3Ma». (3eHbK0BCKMH, i39). Pa3pemuTb B03HMKaromue npu pac-CM0TpeHMM TeKCT0B KapaM3MHa C.0»H0CTM noMoraeT npegcraBneHue o T0M, hto gna pyccKow Kynbrype XVIII BeKa 6w.a xapaKrepHa TecHaa CBa3b Me»gy nuTepaTypow m ^unoco^ueH. Cn0BecH0CTb H0B0r0 Bpe-MeHM 6wna HageneHa b pyccK0M co3HaHMu XVIII BeKa CBowcrBaMM «yHMBepcanbHow rpaMMaTUKu» m 6wna eguHWM gucKypcuBHWM np0CTpaHCTB0M, K0Topoe nopo»gano BwcKa3WBaHua o hobwx Kynb-TypHwx CMwcnax, Mup0B033peHHecKMx ugeax m K0H^e^^Max. ^ro6ow TeKCT, boshmkemh b nuTepaTypH0M TBopnecrae unu ero K0HTeKCTe, co3gaBanca m BocnpuHUManca KaK MHTennercryanbHoe gewcTBue, MtimneHue o ceñe, o CBoew Kynbrype m TpagM^MM. npu Bcew cn0»H0CTM C0^M0KynbTypH0M C06bITMMH0CTM XVIII CToneTua caMwe aKTyanbHwe npo6neMw Ha^M0HanbH0^0 6wTua pemanucb b paMKax cn0BecH0CTM. H geno He T0nbK0 b tom, hto Ka»gwiH pyccKuw nucaTenb HyBCTB0Ban ce6a tbop^m, ocMwcnaromuM m MHTepnpeTupyromMM H0Byro peanbHocTb, ho m cn0BecH0CTb b BwcTpauBana hobww 133 O. M. rOHHÄPOBÄ - KapaM3UH u Pycco (o noBecTu «Moa ucnoBeflb») gucKypc ugeHTMHHocTu, co3ugaa BnepBBie u «3aH0B0» u npom.oe, u 6ygymee pyccK0M Ky.bTypw. Oco6eHH0 0neBugH0M 3Ta uHTeH^ua npoaBu.acb bo BTopoM no.oBUHe BeKa, Korga «MarunecKue c.0Ba XVIII BeKa: Pa3yM, 3aK0H, npupoga - ycTynu.u MecTo paccy»geHuaM 06 HcTopuM m TpagunuM» (ycneHCKMM, 33S) m pe3K0 aKTya.M30Ba.acb npo6.eMa «noucK0B mckohhbix ochob Hau.u0Ha.bH0M Ky.bTypw» (^0TMaH, YcneHCKUM, 244). HMeHHo B sto BpeMa B03HUKaeT u ocTpoe HenpuaTue «pe3K0M m npMCTpacTH0M on,eHKM», K0T0pyro ga. Pycco «onwTy McropunecKoro pa3BMTua PoccuM» (3opuH, 167). Pycco nuca. b TpaKTaTe «O6 o6me-CTBeHH0M goroBope»: «PyccKue HUKorga He CTaHyT mctmhho ^UBU-.M30BaHHWMu, TaK KaK 0HU nogBepr.MCb u,uBu.u3au,uu nepecnyp paH0. neTp o6.aga. Ta.aHTaMu nogpa»aTe.bHWMu <...>. Koe-HTo U3 cge.aHHoro um 6w.o xopomo, 6o.bmaa HacTb 6w.a He k MecTy. Oh noHUMa., hto Hapog ero 6w. guKMM, ho c0BepmeHH0 He noHa., hto oh eme He C03pe. g.a ycTaB0B rpa»gaHCKoro o6mecTBa» (Pycco 1969, 1S3). H 3TM cy»geHMa Pycco, m BwcKa3aHHoe b go.»Hw 6wTb bbi-HepKHyTBi U3 H0Benmux a3WK0B» (Pycco 19S1, I, 2S-29), 0T03Ba.ucb b Poccuu 6ypHWM o6cy»geHueM Bonpoca 0 rpa»gaHUHe u «cwHe oTenecTBa», 0 Ha^u0Ha.bH0M xapaKTepe u «Ha^u0Ha.bH0M ropgo-CTM». Hau6o.ee 3HanuM0M ^y6.uKa^ueM Ha 3Ty TeMy CTa.a CTaTba KapaM3UHa «O .m6bu k oTenecTBy u Hap0gH0M ropgocTu» (1S02), b K0T0p0M ocnopeHw Te3ucw Pycco. npu3HaBaa, hto «mbi u3.umH0 CMupeHHw b Mwc.ax 0 Hap0gH0M CBoeM g0CT0UHCTBe», KapaM3UH numeT: «neTp Be.uKUM, coeguHUB Hac c EBponoro <...>, HeHago.ro yHM3u. HapogHyro ropgocTb pyccKMx. Mw B3r.aHy.u, TaK CKa3aTb, Ha EBpony m ogHMM B3opoM npucB0M.M ce6e n.ogw go.roBpeMeHHwx TpygoB ee» (KapaM3UH, II, 227). hbhom otcbi.kom k Pycco aB.aeTca 134 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications 3aMenaHue KapaM3HHa - «3aBMCTHMKM pyccRux roBopaT, hto mh uMe-eM T0nBK0 b BBicmen CTeneHM nepeuMuueocmb», ho, npogon»aeT oh, «KaK HenoBeK, TaK u Hapog HaHuHaeT Bcerga nogpa:»aHueM; ho gon-»eH co BpeMeHeM 6htb caM coöow» (KapaM3MH, II, 228, 229). H b gpy-rux cboux CTaTBax KapaM3UH n0CT0aHH0 B03Bpam,aeTca k ^T0M TeMe. HanpuMep: «PoccuaHe ogapeHHi ot npupogwi BceM, hto B03B0guT Ha-pogH Ha BBiconatömyro CTeneHB rpa^gaHCRoro Benunua» (KapaM3uH, II, 222). TaK b ^y6nu^ucTUKe KapaM3MHa bo3hmkhm cbom ^unoco^-CKMe pemeHMa - oh no-CBoeMy MHcnHT c^e^u$uKy gucKypca ugeH-tuhhoctu b KaTeropuax 0me^ecmeeHH0^0, K0peHH0^0 pyccKo^o, ceoezo. HanuHue caMo6HTHHx uHTenneRTyanBHHx r0pu30HT0B, TaRuM 06pa30M, u onpegenunu B3auM0geMCTBue nurepaTypBi u <£unoco<£uu. PyccRaa MHcnB ^^oxu He 6bina HacTpoeHa Ha cucTeMaTU3a^uro ugeM u nocTpoeHue ^un0C0^CKux cxeM, a ycTpeMneHa k npoercrupoBaHuro 6ygym,ero b ero eguHeHuu c npomnHM. HegapoM KapaM3uH caguTca 3a Tpyg ucTopuKa: gna Hero Hec0MHeHH0 - «,fl,o cero BpeMeHu Poc-cua 6ecnpecTaHH0 B03BHmanacB <...> - u mh em,e Ha nyTu Hamero cnaBHoro TeHeHua!» (KapaM3uH, II, 230). Oco6hm xapaKTep pyccKOM MHcnu CRa3anca u b aKTuBHHx ^unoco^CRO-aHTpononoruHecKux o6cy»geHuax npo6neMH pyccKOM nuHHOCTu, b HeM npoaBunacB em,e ogHa noKa3aTenBHaa HepTa pyccKOM ^unoco^uu - ee «ampono^H-Tpu3M». B Pocchh BTopoM nonoBHHH XVIII BeRa, Rorga HacTano BpeMa npo6y»geHua «ot Ta^Koro gyxoBHoro o6MopoKa» u «pyccKaa gyma B03Bpa^aeTca k ce6e u3 neTep6yprcKoro uHo6HTua u pacceaHua» (OnopoBCKuM, 153), uHTepec k HenoBeKy u ampononoruHecKuM koh-^e^^MaM 6Hn OHeHB mupoRKM. npo6neMa HenoBeKa CTana ^HTpanB-hom u gna nucaTeneM-uHTennercryanoB (HanpuMep, b TpaKTaTe A. H. Pagurn,eBa «0 HenoBeKe, ero CMepTHOCTu u 6eccMepTuu»), u gna pyccKux Mac0H0B ^^oxu, ucKaBmux nyreM gyxoBHoro B03p0»geHua 135 O. M. rOHHÄPOBÄ - KapaM3UH u Pycco (o noBecTu «Moa ucnoBeflb») (cm. roHHapoBa, 52-95), m g.a pe.urM03Hwx Mwc.MTe.eM XVIII BeKa (HanpuMep, cbt. TuxoHa 3agoHCKoro). B eBponeMCKOM npocBemeHMM caMyro apKyro K0Hn,enn,Mro He.0Be-Ka npegcTaBM. b cbomx TeKCTax Pycco. Ero «ecTecTBeHHwM He.0BeK» o6pe. TaKyro n0ny.apH0CTB, hto c^opMupoBa. oco6wM Tun ceHTM-MeHTa.BHoro repoa, m pyccKMe aBTopw, Hamegmue «ecTecTBeHHOCTB» b KpecTBaHMHe, HacTO npaMO 0TCw.a.u HMTaTe.a k mmêhm Pycco M.M «HOBOM ^.0M3e» M ohbm3mh go6po»e.aTe.BH0 on,eHMBa.n KHury 136 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications Pyceo KaK «Henogpa»aeMoe eonuHeHue» (Oghbu3uh, 3oo). TenepB oh numeT co6cTBeHHoe «npu3HaHue» u mmcaut uenoBega.BHWM gueKype u uenoBegyrom,eroea ne.OBeKa uHane, He ygoB.eTBopaaeB pyccoucTCKUMu npuHu,unaMu. OoHBU3UHa CMymaeT nognepKHyraa a-^G3u^ua repoa «HenoBegu». CBoe «npu3HaHue» oh CBa3wiBaeT c gpyruM TunoM ucnoBega.BHoro c.OBa - «ga He 6ygeT b npu3HaHuax Moux HUKaKoro gpyroro nogBura, KpoMe paeKaaHua xpueTuaHCKO-ro: HucToeepgeHHG OTKporo t3mhh eepg^ Moero u 6e33aKoHua Moa a3 eo3eewy» (Oghbu3uh, 245). 3gecB aBTop nepe$pa3upyeT 31-M nca-.OM, k HeMy »e o6pam,aeTca b Hana.e CBoeM «HenoBegu» u ABrycTUH B.a»eHHWM: «Pa3Be He CBugeTe.BCTBOBa. a nepeg Tg6gm, CKa3a.: 'HenoBegywcB rocnogy b 6e33aKOHuu MoeM', u Tbi npocTu. HenecTue cepgu,a Moero» (ABrycTUH, 6). CBa3B TeKCTa OoHBU3UHa c pe.uruo3-HG-uenoBega.BHGM Tpaguu,ueM, aB.eHHaa b u,uTau,uu 6u6.eMeKux TeKCTOB u ucno.B3GBaHuu aruorpa^unecKux motubob, HecoMHeHHa. ynTeM, HTO «HenoBegB» ABrycTUHa, KaK u TeKCT Pyceo, 6w.a xopomo 3HaKGMa pyecKGMy ne.OBeKy anoxu, ee hgbbim nepeBog noaBu.ea 6yKBa.BHG HaKaHyHe C03gaHua «HucTOcepgenHoro npu3HaHua». KaK OTMeTu. BaTKUH, «'HenoBegB' ABrycTUHa <...> o nyTu ne.o-BeKa k ucTUHHOMy Bory», a npou3BegeHue Pyceo - ^T0 «coBepmeHHO CBeTCKaa uenoBegB, ny»g,aa noKaaHuro», 3tg «ano.orua nacTHOM »U3HU» (BaTKUH 2ooo , 33). noKa3aTe.BHBi g.a Pyceo u «HecpaBHeH-HWM, npomuBaromuM Bee ero no3gHue conuHeHua aBTo6uorpa^u3M u.u ^^G^eHTpu3M», u «omymeHue oguHonecTBa» (BaTKUH 2oi2, 39), u «MaKCUMa.BHoe caM006Ha»eHue» (KoBa.eBa, 91). PyecKGMy Mwm-.eHHW TaKaa Moge.B .hhhgcth u CTpyKTypa ee ucnoBeganBHoro e.0Ba GKa3HBawTca Hy»g,BiMH. Tgt c.0»hbim KGMn.eKC Ha^MGHa.BHG ene^ u^unecKux npo6.eM, KOTopwM era. ocTpoaKTya.BHWM bg BTopoM no.GBUHe CTG.eTua, BK.rona. b ce6a u Bonpoe o pyccKOM .uhhgctu 137 O. M. rOHHÄPOBÄ - KapaM3UH u Pycco (o noBecTu «Moa ucnoBeflb») m ee caM00npege.eHMM. B stom aHTpono.oruHecKOM nepcneKTMBe Mwm.eHua o ceöe, 0C06eHH0 3H3hmmhm 6w.o o6m.ee OTHomeHue MMeHHO k MHgMBugya.M3My, 3rou3My m.m «caMOCTM». B TpaKTaTe «0 n0Bpe»geHMM HpaBOB b Poccmm» M. ffl,ep6ar0Ba «caMOCTB» CTa-HOBMTca 3HaK0M HpaBCTBeHHoro nageHua pyccKoro He.0BeKa. Hanpu-Mep: «...rpy6ocTB HpaBOB yMeHBmu.acB, ho 0CTaB.eHH0e ero MecTO .ecTuro m caMCTBOM Hano.HM.ocB» (ffl,ep6aT0B, i5). ffl,ep6ar0B nog-HepKHy., HTO 06 0TpM^aHMM «CaMOCTM» MWC.MT He.0BeK TpaÄM^M-ohhwx B3r.ag0B, BOcnuTaHHWM «no CTporuM gpeBHMM npaBM.aM» (ffl,ep6aT0B, y). H TeKCT $0HBM3MHa, cocpegoTOHeHHtiM Ha npupoge He.0BeKa, HanpaB.eH Ha penpe3em^uro co6cTBeHHoM m TpagM^M0HH0M, ot-.mhhom OT MHgMBugya.M3Ma Pycco, aHTpono.oruHecKOM K0Hu,en-h,mm. B 3T0M c.yHae Hy»H0 yHecTB, hto .ro6aa CBeTCKaa ucnoBegB «^opMupyeTca KaK OTBeT (uHorga m KaK npaMOM bw30b) n03uu,MM ABrycTMHa» (yBapoB, 46). 06paTUM BHUMaHue Ha to, hto m caM Pycco b HaHa.e «HcnoBegu», no cyTM, BCTynaeT b CKpwTyro no.eMUKy c Ab-rycTMHOM. Hec.ynaMH0 3to uMa Bce-TaKM 6ygeT npaMO Ha3BaH0 n03»e - b «npory.Kax oguHOKoro MeHTaTe.a»: «H He 3axo»y TaK ga.eK0, KaK 6.a»eHHwM ABrycTMH, KOTopwM, 6ygB oh ocy»geH Ha BeHHwe MyKM, yTema.ca 6w Mwc.Bro, hto TaKOBa BO.a 6o»Ba» (Pycco i96i, 585). TaK KopoTKO m acHO Pycco Bwpa3M. o6m,MM na^oc yHeHua ABrycTM-Ha 0 He.0BeKe, uMea b Bugy m «HcnoBegB», m TpaKTaT «0 CBo6oge BO.M», r.y60K0 Hy»gwe pa^M0Ha.MeTy XVIII BeKa. Cbomm «ge.0M 6ecnpuMepHWM» Pycco cnopuT c ABrycTMHOM. Ec.u r.aBHwe Bonpo-cw g.a ABrycTMHa - «Kto a m KaKOB a?», «Hto ®e a TaKoe, Bo»e mom? KaKOBa npupoga Moa?» (ABrycTMH, l6y, 209), to y Pycco y»e r0T0Bw OTBeTw: «H xoHy n0Ka3aTB <...> He.0BeKa bo BceM npaBge npupogw», «H oguH 3Haro CBoe cepg^» (Pycco i96i, 9). Ec.u g.a ABrycTMHa ero 138 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications ucnoBeganBHoe cobo - ^T0 co6ecegoBaHue c BoroM: «HcnoBegt Moa coBepmaeTca npeg au^m Tboum, Bo»e mom» (ABrycTUH, 193), to g.a Pycco - ^T0 c.obo o ce6e u g.a ce6a: «H numy <...> to.bko g.a ce6a» (Pycco 1961, 577). Oohbu3uh Bw6upaeT ^osu^uro ABrycTUHa: oh ucnoBegyeT «TOMy eguHOMy <...> 6.arKe gena mou, eMy eguHOMy 3a hux 6.arogapro u ero Monro, ga Ma b ceM 6.aroM yTBepguT go koh^ »u3hu» u, KaK u Ab-rycTUH, o6pam,aeTca k HeMy - «Ho, rocnogu! Te6e u3BecTH0 cepg^ Moe...» (Oohbu3uh, 246, 257). OoHBU3UH noneMunecKu npoTUBono-CTaBu. no3uu,uu Pycco cbom «npuMep»: oh ugeT 3a «HcnoBegtro» ABrycTUHa, «cnegya r.acy coBecTu» b «pacKaaHuu xpucTuaHCKOM» ($ohbu3uh, 246). B «HcnoBegu» Pycco «npaKTunecKu OTcyTCTByeT noHaTua rpexa u ^pKOBHoro noKaaHua» (3.aTono.BCKaa, 158) u one-BugHO «ocBo6o®geHue ot nyBCTBa buhbi» (KoBaneBa, 93). oohbu3uh »e aKTyanu3yeT b CBoeM «npu3HaHuu» uMeHHO motubbi «corpe-meHua», «rpexa u nopoKa», «cogeaHHoro 3na» u pacKaaHua b hux. no BceM BuguMOCTu, b «HcnoBegu» ABrycTUHa OoHBU3UHa npuBneK-no to, hto 3gecb «Top»ecTByeT na^oc TO»gecTBa Bcex u Ka»goro», hto OTgenBHaa «»u3hb noHaTa KaK npuTna 0 HenoBeKe» (BaTKUH 2o12, 8o, 77). H, rnaBHoe - .uhhoctb 3gecB onpegenaeTca He «»uTeM-ckom uHTUMHOCTbro», He «nacTHBiM cym,ecTBOBaHueM» uHguBugya-nucTa, KaK y Pycco (BaTKUH 2ooo, 33-34), a «B03HUKaeT - 6narogapa HagnunHOCTHOMy Mogycy cym,ecTBOBaHua - b MonuTBe», a «s oco3-HaeTca <...> nepe3 6o»ecTBeHHoe Tu» (BaTKUH 2ooo, 64). PagOM C TeKCTOM OOHBrnUHa MO»eT 6mtb paCCMOTpeH U «^HeBHUK ogHOM Hegenu» A. H. Pagum,eBa, b KOTopoM BBiCKa3aHa aHTpononoru-necKaa K0H^e^^ua nucaTena-MwcnuTena. B gpyrux nuTepaTypHBix u ^unoco^CKux TeKCTax BHUMaHueM nucaTena cocpegoToneHO Ha npo-6neMe «BHyTpeHHero nenoBeKa», ero gyxoBHoM npupogw u gpyrux 139 O. M. rOHHÄPOBÄ - KapaM3UH u Pycco (o noBecTu «Moa ucnoBeflb») acneKTax npaBOcnaBHOM aHTpono.oruu. «,HeBHUK» - nogHepKHyTO CBeTCKMM TeKCT, m $a6y.a ero npocTa: 3gect onucaHw HecKO.tKO gHeM, npoBegeHHwe aBTopoM 3anuceM 6e3 yexaBmux gpy3eM. BHyTpeHHuM cro»eT «,fl,HeBHMKa» - ^T0 Hanpa»eHHoe, ^KCTaTMHecKM-6o.e3HeHHoe nepe»MBaHueM repoeM oguHOHecTBa u 0THy»geHua. HanpuMep: «rpycTt Moa <...> genana MeHa noHTu rnyxuM u HeMWM. <...>. ,eHt oto gHa 6ecnoKoMcTBue Moe ycyry6.aeTca» (Pagurn,eB, 263). CMwcnoByro nepcneKTUBy u onucaHuro, u »aHpy 3agaeT cootho-meHue u c o6m,uM na^ocoM «HcnoBegu», u c K0H^m,ueM HenoBeKa B «npory.Kax oguHOKoro MeHTaTena» Pycco. Cbom «npory.KM» aBTop npegcTaBM. KaK «gHeBHUK»: ecTB cymecTBO 3aBucuMoe. Cepgu,e ero 06pa30BaH0 HyBCTBOBaTB c gpyruMM» (KapaM3UH, II, i20-i2i). Pycco T0»e roBopu. 0 cocTpagaHMM, uMea b Bugy to npupogHoe HyBCTBO, KOTopoe M0»eT npoTMBonocTaBMTB He.0BeKa Ky.BType m ^MBM.M3a^MM. B b.h3hum u3arn,Horo Ha o6pa3oBaHue gymu», KapaM3uH 3aK.ronaeT - «gocroMHBi .u ohu oTBeTa?», «He ot hux oTenecTBo o^ugaeT Be.uKoro u c.aBHoro», BegB b Poccuu, no ero MHeHuro, ucKyccTBa 6ygyT «nuTaTB .m6obb k oTenecTBy u HyBcTBo HapogHoe» (KapaM3uH, II, 162). npu ^T0M Hy»Ho oTMeTuTB, hto uh-Te..eKTya.BHaa no.eMuKa c ugeaMu Pycco He oTMeHu.a uHTepeca k ero .uhhoctu: KapaM3MH b to »e caMoe BpeMa ny6.uKyeT pag cbomx nepeBogoB nuceM Pycco b «naHTeoHe uHocrpaHHoM c.oBecHocru» (1798) u b «BecTHuKe EBponBi» (1802-1803). OgHaKo no.eMuKy c Pycco oh npogo.»aeT b «MoeM ucnoBegu». K). M. ^oTMaH cBa3a. TeKcT KapaM3MHa c <£m.oco<£ckmmm ucKaHuaMu nucaTe.a, nocnuTaB ero «cBoeo6pa3HBiM 'AHTu^Mu.eM'» (.HoTMaH 1969, 584). OgHaKo ucno.B3yeMBiM KapaM3uHBiM ucnoBega.BHBrn gucKypc no3Bo.aeT yBugeTB b noBecTM no.eMMKy MMeHHo c «HcnoBe-gBro» Pycco u ero aHTpono.orueu. C.egyeT ynecTB, hto k 3TOMy TeKcTy npuMHKaeT pag gpyrux, cBa3aHHBix c ocMBic.eHueM npupogBi He.o-BeKa: «HyBcTBuTe.BHBiu u xo.ogHBiu» u «PB^apB Hamero BpeMeHu». B hux ynoMuHaeTca hmh Pycco, oco6eHHo npocTpaHHoe paccy»geHue 142 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications 06 , go KoToporo HMKorga He goBogu^ <...> hmkto» 144 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications (Pycco i96i, 607). Ho uMeHHO ^T0 u ct&bmt nog coMHeHue nog.uH-HOCTb paccKa3a 6e3WMaHHoro a b «MoeM ucnoBegu». CaM0.ro6uBwe npu3HaHua repoa b «npoKa3ax», ux geMOHcrpaTUBHtrn u BW3WBa-romuM ^KC^U6U^U0HU3M HanoMUHaroT rpoTecKHoe TeaTpa.bHoe geMcTBue (HegapoM b TeKCTe ynoMaHyTw «KUTaMcKue TeHu»). nog-.uHHaa ucnoBegb - BHyTpeHHee, gyxoBHoe ge.o .uhhoctu, Hy»goe ny6.uHH0CTu, a repoM «MoeM ucnoBegu» »a»geT UMeHHO ny6.uH-HOCTu (noBecTb uMeeT n0g3ar0.n0B0K «nucbMO k u3gaTe.ro»). TaK u npaBguBOCTb, u n0g.uHH0CTb ^Tux npu3HaHua KapaM3UH CBoguT k nuumo, to ecTb aHHy.upyeT KaK co6wTue. O nuumo roBopuT caM repoM, ynpeKaa gpyrux «ucnoBegHMKOB» b tom, hto «ohm yMeroT pac-n.oguTb caMoe hmhto» (KapaM3UH, I, 535), HeM, no cyTM, 3aHUMaeTca u caM. H 3ro «hmhto», Bno.He bo3mo»ho, T0»e aB.aeTca otcw.koM k Pycco, KOTopwM nuca. b «npory.Kax»: «...OTHtme a huhto cpegu .rogeM, u 3ro Bce, HeM a Mory 6wTb» (Pycco i96i, 576). noBecTb KapaM3UHa «Moa ucnoBegb», TaKUM 06pa30M, n03B0.aeT n0-H0B0My B3r.aHyTb Ha ucTopuro BOcnpuaTua aHTpono^oruHecKux ugeM Pycco b pyccKOM Ky.bType XVIII BeKa m noHaTb ee KaK TeKCT, CBa-3aHHWM C pa3BUTUeM pyCCKOM MWC.U snoxu, UCKaHUa KOTopoM 6w.u CBa3aHw, npe»ge Bcero, c oco3HaHueM HauMOHa^bHOM cneu,u^uKu co6cTBeHHwx MHTe„eKTya.bHwx ropM30HT0B m C03gaHueM ^m.oco^-ckux u aHTpono.oruHecKux napaMeTpoB gucKypca ugeHTUHHOCTu. KapaM3UH, npoaB.a. caMwM aKTUBHwM uHTepec k K0HCTpyup0Ba-Huro o6pa3a pyccKoM .uhhoctu b cboux npou3BegeHuax i790-x rogoB, Korga ero BO.HOBa. npe»ge Bcero Ky.bTypHwM ee CTaTyc b hobom BpeMeHu. Tenepb nucaTe.b o6pam,aeTca k Hau^OHaflbHO-ucTopuHe-CKOMy M3MepeHuro gyxoBHoro npocTpaHCTBa pyccKoro He.0BeKa, hto u npoaBu.ocb b «BecTHUKe EBponw». Ony6.uK0BaHHaa 3gecb «Moa ucnoBegb», opueHTupoBaHHaa Ha ^o^TUKy ucnoBega.bHoro cnoBa, 145 O. M. rOHHÄPOBÄ KapaM3UH u Pycco (o noBecTU «Moa ucnoBegb») npu3BaHa 6w.a gucKpeguTupoBaTb pyccoucTCKoe noHUMaHue BHy-TpeHHeM n,eHH0CTM He.0BeHecKoro a. npoBOKaTUBHaa OTKpoBeHHOCTb Pycco, CTaHOBacb r.aBHOM MHTeH^MeM repoa noBecTM, pa3MWBaeT rpaHM^i npaBgw m .»m, nog.MHHoM He.0BeHH0CTu m ^^0MCTMHecK0M npeTeHu,u03H0cru. KapaM3UH Ha r.a3ax HUTaTe.eM aHHuru.upyeT Me.0HH0-6wT0BHe M3.uaHua repoa, He cooTBeTCTBywmue mctmhho-My 6wtmw m ocym.ecTB.eHMW nog.MHH0M He.0BeHecK0M .mhhoctm. $ 146 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications ^MTepaTypa ABrycTHH, En., 20i5: Hcnoeedh. Muhck: Ee.opyccKaa npaBOC.aBHaa ^pKOBb. batkhh, .. m., 2000: EeponeûcKuû uenoeeK Haedune c co6oû. OuepKu o KynhmypHo-ucmopuuecKux ocHoeaHwx u npedenax numocmHozo caMoco3HaHm. MocKBa: Prry. batkhh, .. m., 20i2: fluwocmh u cmpacmu MaH-MaKa Pycco. MocKBa: Prry. roHHAPOBA, o. m., 2004: Bnacmh mpaduy,uu u «Hoeaa Poccw» e numepamypHoM co3HaHuu emopoû nonoeuHU XVIII eern. CaHKT-neTep6ypr: PXrH. 3EHbKOBCKHH, B. B., i99i: Hcmopua pyccKoû fyunocofyuu: e 2 m. T. 1. ^eHUHrpag: ^^o. 3.ATono.bCKAH, a. a., 20i0: «HcnoBegb» Pycco u pyccKaa mbicb XVIII-XIX BeKOB. BecmHuK PXrA. T. 22. N 2. i5y-i69. 3OPHH, a., 200i: KopMa deyznaeozo opna... PyccKaa.numepamypa u zocydapcmeeman udeonozua e nocnedHeû mpemu XVIII - nepeoû mpemuXIX eern. MocKBa: HoBoe .uTepaTypHoe o6o3peHue. H3MAHAOB, b., b., iS03: Mo.ogoM ^u.oco^. BecmHuK Eeponu. iS03. N 5-6. 3-24, S9-i0y. KAPAM3HH, h. m., i9S4: CouuHeHm: e2 m. ^eHUHrpag: XygomecTBeHHaa .uTepaTypa. KOBA.EBA, E., K., 20l4: «HcnOBegb» Pycco KaK BTOpUHHBiM peneBOM »aHp. Mmepamypa e KoHmeKcmi Kynhmypu. Bun. 25. S9-95. .OTMAH, ro. m., i969: Pycco u pyccKaa Ky.bTypa XVIII - Hana.a XIX BeKa. PyccoM.-M. TpaKmamu. MocKBa: HayKa. 555-604. .OTMAH, ro., m., i9Sy: ComeopeHue KapaM3uHa. MocKBa: KHura. 147 0. m. rohhapoba ► KapaM3MH u Pycco (o noBecTM «Moa McnoBeflb») AOTMAH, ro. M., yCnEHCKHH, E., A., 1994: PonB gyanBHBIX Mogenen b guHaMuKe pyccKOM KynBTypti (go koh^ XVIII BeKa). yeneHeKMM E. A. fäöpaHHbie mpydbi. T. 1. MocKBa: rHO3uc. 219-253. PAflHm,EB, A. H., 1988: COHUHeHM. MOCKBa: Xygo^ecTBeHHaa nuTepaTypa. pycco, k.-k., 1961: M36paHHue coh.: e3 m. T. 3. Hcnoeedb. ^po^ynKU 0^UH0K0^0 MeHmamem. MocKBa: Xygo^ecTBeHHaa nuTepaTypa. pycco, k.-k., 1969: TpaKmambi. MocKBa: HayKa. pycco, k.-k., 1981: ^e^a^o^UHecKue cohumhm: e 2 m. MocKBa: negaroruKa. cmhphob, h. n., 2010: TeKcmoMaxm: KaKnumepamypa omsueaemca Ha $moco$uw. CaHKT-neTepöypr: neTpononuc. yBAPOB, m., 1998: ApxumeKmoHUKa ucn0ee^anbH0^0 cnoea. CaHKT-neTepöypr: AneTena ycnEHcKHH, e. a., 1994: fäöpaHHbie mpydbi. T. 2. MocKBa: Tho3uc. $^opobckhh, r. b., 2009: nymu pyccK0^0 6o^ocnoeua. MocKBa: hhctutyt pyccKon ^uBunu3a^uu. $ohbh3hh, g. h., 1983: M3ÖpaHHoe. MocKBa: CoBeTcKun nucaTenB. ^epeatob, m. m., 2001: 0 noepewdeHUu Hpaeoe e Poccuu. MocKBa, Augsburg: Im Werden-Verlag. SHynKEBHH, a. c., 2006: PoMaH H. M. KapaM3uHa «Ptm,apB Hamero BpeMeHu»: TeKcT u KoHTeKcT. KapaM3UH u epeMa. Tomck: H3g-Bo tomck. yH-Taro 70-91. 148 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications Summary N. Karamzin showed great interest in J.-J. Rousseau and argued with him. The title of his story My Confession directly refers to the Confessions of Rousseau and helps to consider this story in broad philosophical and literary contexts. The special cultural significance of the Russian literary discourse should be taken into account. Russian literature of this time was distinguished by special attention to the construction of anthropological models. The brightest and popular conception of person was represented in the Rousseau's works, which were well known in Russia. However, the attitude of Russian thinkers towards the philosophical experience of Rousseau did not abolish the polemical view of the ideas of the "Citizen of Geneva". Next to Karamzin's story can be considered «confessional» works of D. I. Fonvizin A frank confession of my deeds and thoughts and A. N. Radishchev Diary of one week, who contest the anthropological model of Rousseau and his ideas about the confessional word. In this context, the novel My confession can be understood as the text that is associated with the development of Russian thought of the era, search-ings of which was associated with the creation of philosophical and anthropological parameters of the identity discourse. N. Karamzin, who showed the most active interest in the construction of the image of the Russian personality in his previous works, now turns to the poetics of the confessional word, discrediting Rousseau's understanding of the intrinsic value of the human self. Karamzin annihilates petty outpourings of the hero, not corresponding to the true existence and implementation of the person, in front of readers. 149 o. m. rohhapoba ► KapaM3UH u Pycco (o noBecTM «Moa ucnoBegb») ronuapoea On^a MuxaûnoeHa Onbza MuxaunoeHa romapoea, doKmop fyunonozunecxux HayK, npofieccop Ka^edpu pyccKoü numepamypu PoccuücKo^o ^ocy^apcmeeHHo^o ne^a^o-^u^ecKo^o yHueepcumema um. A.H. repv,eHa (CaHKm-^emep6yp^). Aemop ny6nuKau,uü no ucmopuu pyccKoü Kynbmypu u numepamypu. MoHo^pa-fyuu «Bnacmb mpaduy,uu u «Hoean Poccw» e numepamypHoM co3HaHuu emopoü nonoernuXVIII eem» (Œ6., 2004), «Hoeuenwdu» 1860-x: udeu - meKcmu - coy,uonpaKmuKu» (Œ6., 2011). Coaemop KonnexmueHux mo-Ho^pa$uü «3HaK, nenoeeK, cMucn: npocmpaHcmea MeMduc^unnuHapHoü perfineKcuu» (Cïïë., 2008); «O6pa3 Poccuu eo epeMemoü nepcnexmuee» (Œ6., 2012); «CeMuommecmn pezynm,un co^uanbHo^o noeedenun nun-Hocmu coepeMeHHoM Mupe» (Œ6., 2016). 150 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications 151 doi - 10.13137/2283-5482/28127 roxy6ou/-m Literature and Russian Holiness1 roxy6afi literatura in ruska svetost $ Miha jAvoRNiK - miha.javornik@ff.uni-lj.si slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications In a short reflection, we are dealing with the issue of Russian LGBT culture. In understanding literature and LGBT culture in Russia, we come from the ambivalent attitude of the Russians to the Law. From the beginnings of the Russian state, homosexuality was, by law or canon law strictly forbidden. But in reality there was a lost of homosexuality and it was tolerated. We proceed from the assumption: if God's Word is holy, everything written in fiction is also sacred - the book is the bearer of truth and beauty. There is no room for talk about homosexuality. Apart from smaller, masked homosexual deviations in Lermontov, Gogol, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky or Chekhov, even writting about homosexuality is considered a sin. Why is this so? LGBT AND RUSSIAN CULTURE, GAY LITERATURE, RUSSIAN MESSIANISM, RUSSIAN HOLINESS V kratkem razmišljanju se ukvarjamo z vprašanjem ruske LGBT kulture. Ob razumevanju književnost in LGBT kultura v Rusiji izhajamo iz ambiva-lentnega odnosa Rusov do Zakona. Že od začetkov ruske države je bila namreč homoseksualnost z zakonom oz. kanonskim pravom strogo prepovedana. Dejansko pa je bilo homoseksualnosti veliko in so jo tolerirali. Izhajamo iz predpostavke: če je Božja beseda sveta, je sveto tudi vse, kar je zapisano v leposlovju - knjiga je nosilka resnice in lepote. V njej ni prostora za govor o homoseksualnosti. Razen manjših, zamaskiranih homoseksualnih odstopov pri Lermontovu, Gogolju, Tolstoju, Dostojevskem ali Čehovu, je že pisati o homoseksualnosti greh. Zakaj je temu tako? LGBT IN RUSKA KULTURA, GEJEVSKA LITERATURA, RUSKI MESIJANIZEM, RUSKA SVETOST Rmy6oH is a colloquial expression for the same sex oriented person. 153 miha javornik ► ro^y6ow/-afl Literature and Russian Holiness It is interesting that even until today there are no studies of homosexual culture and literature in Russia, although in the western world there are now many research centers dealing with the issue of LGBT culture. Unlike the special study courses in Western universities, in Russia, this topic is still a taboo. A step back was made with law adopted in 2013 for the ban of the propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations in the midst of minors (3aKOH 3anpem,arom,MM nponaraHgy HeTpag^MOHHtix ceKcya^BHwx oraomeHMM cpegu Hec0BepmeHH0.neTHMx). It has launched numerous condemnations of liberl-thinking people both outside and in Russia itself. Consequently, the ban imposed fears on members of the LGBT community and put Russia back to the time when darkness ruled. The question poses itself: why is this so? This reflection on the situation of the LGBT community and its literature will be an overview but at the same time also a polemic one. I will be questioning the causes for the formation or in fact the absence of erotic and consequently homoerotic / homosexual discourse. I will continue with a consideration of the meaning of LGBT literature in Russian culture in general. I will be using the term homo erotic and homosexual discourse as synonyms. In Russia, there is actually little discussion about homosexual literature; in principle, at the universities there is no possibility of studying LGBT culture as a special discipline, i.e. queer studies. The only reliable source about LGBT in Russia are activists around the internet portal gay.ru. Information on homosexual literature (especially contemporary) can thus be obtained only from direct contacts with the representatives of LGBT community or from western studies dedicated to Russian LGBT culture. Once very popular amongst homosexual population, Kvir magazine (since 2003), can today only be found on the internet. Some queer 154 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications data are still available on other websites (usually work of enthusiasts), but by far the most scientifically competent are western sources that have had direct contact with Russian LGBT culture and systematically researched it. In the following, I will therefore point out three important authors that I find relevant to highlighting LGBT culture: Kevin Moss, who edited the work entitled Out of the Blue: Russia's Hidden Gay Literature from 1997. Within this collection, attention should be paid to the contribution of Simon Karlinsky Russia's Gay Literature and History. There is also Denis LeBlanc with his work Slavic sins of the flesh: food sex and carnal appetite in the 19th century Russian fiction from 2009. Today, Russian and Western sources state that Russian LGBT culture is under threat, its representatives are exposed to ridicule, some are rightfully afraid for their lives. This fact is also confirmed by one of the most prominent LGBT activists Dmitry Kuzmin. The current situation is not only the present-days fault of mostly homophobic Russian society, but also the general expression of the Russian cultural model. I will try to highlight this specificity. An interesting starting point for this research is offered by Ronald Denis LeBlanc in his work Slavic Sins of the Flesh. LeBlanc mentions the Russian religious philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev, a representative of metaphysical idealism. By focusing on Berdjaev, LeBlanc speaks of the innate spirituality of the Russian man, and this reflection is important for the understanding of Russian mentality: the absence of "physical" means abstinence from the temptations of the material, and thus of all the physical, related to sexuality. In Russian culture the notions of the values of spiritual are connected to the word of God, in the name of whom Russian soil is being christianised since the 11th century. Cultural histories foreground that the Russian man is accustomed to follow the Word of God as the 155 miha javornik ► ro^y6ow/-afl Literature and Russian Holiness only wright truth: hence the difference between the words of justice (npaBga) - the logical truth, and the truth (ucTMHa) - God given truth. It is logical then to infer that the word in Russian culture has the value of Truth. After the fall of Rome and Byzantium, the idea of Moscow as the third Rome, which preserves the wright word, creates the original doctrine and true faith in God - that is Orthodoxy (npaBOcnaBMe). Based on faith in the Word, a double perception is formed, which is a characteristic of the Russian mentality: on the one hand, there is faith in the pure and the true Word, on the other, lust (nnoTb), which is according to the biblical representation sin: a Russian man suppresses the carnal lust, is still being sinful, but cannot even write about it. Infront of him there is only heaven for saints or hell for the sinners, the Orthodox Bible does not know the place where a man can be cleansed (HMCTMflMm,e) - the Russian mentality does not know the purgatory. The Russian man is thus torn between extremes: on the one hand the sin, the work of the Antichrist, on the other, the Word as the carrier of truth and beauty, God's extasy. The word about carnal lust, sexuality, let alone homosexuality, is forbidden. It is understandable that the dominant authority (consequently, the tzar, who is the embodiement of God on earth) feels a calling to preserve the value of the Word and spiritual morality. Regardless of the social order, this mentality applies to the present days: Soviet leadership or the putinism of today's time are similar to the religious doctrine in the preservation of purity. Art plays an important role all periods, as it represents the continuity of the word of God, which is also the word of authority. Therefore, there is no place for bodily activity in the times when religious or state art (classicism) is being born: physicality leads to sin. The perceptual notions of flesh, eroticism and sex remain and exist only in the lower 156 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications genre, in folk literature or in folklore. The duality between high and profane can thus be manifested only in the rich erotic-sexual lexicon of folk literature. If the boundary between high and low is strictly set - and in a strict biblical opposition, which does not know the purgatory (cleansing place), the erotic discourse cannot even be developed in sacred, beautiful literature (belletres). The first attempts of erotic motives and, consequently, erotic discourse in high literature developed from the transition from normative to descriptive poetics - that is, on the transition from classicism to romanticism, in times when, regardless of the still dominant meaning of God's Word, the focus of personal experience is on the forefront. Of course, this does not in any way mean that it would now be possible to speak freely and without reservation of the sexuality of high, ruling classes in the elite literature - and, consequently, of their homosexual experiences, such as, for example, Ivan Grozny or Peter the Great were having - about eroticism and sexual experiences is now spoken by the poet himself in low, usually comic genres. The unexpected carnality (in the motives of homosexuality) is being either masked (as with Gogol), or portrayed as humorous as in Lermont's (Junker Poem). The most explicit carnality was expressed by the greatest Russian poet Alexander Pushkin in Secret Notes, which are considered one of the best (male) manuals of women's sexuality. In his Notes, it is especially interesting how Pushkin, as a declared heterosexual, liberally accepted homosexuality. He had a friend Philippe Vigel, an open homosexual, with whom he exchanged letters during his exile to the south. In one of the letters, he adds a witty song, how three nice boys are waiting for him in Chisinau, and at the same time inviting the addressee to visit him on the condition that he (Vigel) will not touch him: 157 miha javornik ► ro^y6ow/-afl Literature and Russian Holiness He 3naw, npudym nu k meôe nod eenep Munux mpu xpacaeu,a; OdnaKo m Koe-KaK, mou dpyz, ïïuwb monbKo ôydem Mue docyz, flenowmca a neped moôow; Te6e cnyMumb a 6ydy pad CmuxaMu, npo3ou, eceu dywow, Ho, Buzenb, — no^du mou 3ad! Given the strict commitment to the Word in Russian society, it is interesting that literary history coined a term for this romantic period of individual sensation, called Golden era of Russian literature (3onomou eex pyccxou numepamypu). This would be then some kind of contradictio and adjecto. The observer of Russian culture should therefore not be surprised that the second period, characterized by the liberation of moral and legal issues, was called with the related term: the Silver Age. Another kind of contradiction. This is a period of new romanticism, symbolism, for a time when European decadence spills into Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. At that time literature with open homoerotic motivation appears. Let me mention some important representatives: Marina Cvetaeva, Mihail Kuzmin, Sofija Parnok, Sergey Jesenin and Fjodor Sologub with extremely obscene descriptions of sexuality... Following the reflection on the development of (homo)erotic discourse, we must stop at the historical avant-garde, which coincides with the aforementioned modernist movements. Regardless of its declarative denial of the past, and therefore also of the Silver Age, in the time of avant-garde-isms, life continues in search of various possibilities that bring about the liberation. Their experiments were not only 158 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications technological, philosophical and artistic, but also searched for different coexistence: a special attention should be paid to the triangle: Vladimir Mayakovsky, as the central poet of the October Revolution, Osip Brik, as an important formalist, and his spouse Lili Brik. In order to understand Russian mentality and Russian (homo)sexual discourse, it is most important to know, that after the October Revolution in Russia, homosexuality was legalized and tolerated: the time of the early and late avant-garde, ending by the end of the 1920s, is considered one of the most ideally pluralistic periods in Russian culture. But this freedom also has its other side, since this is also the time of social revolutions, which an academically educated intellectual elite expected with fear. In all this time, from the February Revolution of 1905 to October 1917, one can speak of the already proverbial hesitancy of Russian intellectual elite, which is insightfully portrayed in the writings of modern Russian writer Viktor Yerofeyev: in fear of normative ties inteligentsia did not play a more important role in order to bring about the florishing society, but with the increasing Stalinist totalitarianism, new / old norms have been removed: the law, the authority and the word were now embodied by Joseph V. Stalin. The consequences are clear: erotic and homoerotic or sexual discourse is prohibited by decree. In the conception of a state machine, there is no room for any sensual pleasures. The national norm intervenes in the field of private and there are open pressures on the same-sex population: important homosexual artists (including world-renowned director Sergei Eisenstein) must consent to marriage with the opposite sex; if not they are threatened to be imprisoned in concentration camp (GULAG). While at the end of the 19th century Berdjaev talked about the spirituality of the Russian man, any spirituality that did not conform to the partys vision was forbidden in the Soviet Union. Even the thought 159 miha javornik ► ro^y6ow/-afl Literature and Russian Holiness of individual freedom from the times of the Golden and the Silver Age of man could lead to a violent party re-education. The repressive apparatus did not extend to the spiritual field alone, but also developed the old normative idea of the physicality linked up with sinful sexuality. Communist doctrine of oppression transferred (Homo)erotic discourse to the margins of culture. The body as the object of desire is replaced, in the Stalinist propaganda, by a physically enduring, muscular body that, if I paraphrase Stalin, is merely a screw in the body of the state / machinery: from here arises - similar to a Nazi propaganda machine -also in the Stalinist cult of the chiselled like body, which is clearly visible on posters - a man as a woman's body becomes a public good and is in no way linked to sexuality. This understanding changes into a paradigm that exists as an unwritten law until the times of glasnost and Gorbachev's perestroika in the 1980s. In this regard, today there is proverbial statement, which in the first steps of the opening of the Soviet Union to the world in 1986 a Russian woman given to the question of an American journalist: in the USSR there is no sex at all (b CCCP ceKca HeT). This answer is symptomatic. If the basis for an average American advertising posters is an erotic-sexual hint, in the Soviet propaganda, the uncovered male and female body is connected only with the idea of a steel worker with a featureless face, a heroic look, shining in a bright future. Sexuality is hidden in the public, of course, but this does not mean that it doesn't exist. This became clearly evident after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hence, in the development of society the period of the glasnost and the pluralism of the nineties, the Soviet iconography is replaced, and (homo) erotic or, (homo) sexual discourse is reborn. It appears in so called the noflno.bHaa / underground literature (named so after F. Dostoevsky), this now receiving the name the other literature or the 160 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications so called new wave. It is full of obscene sexual scenes related to juicy curses, which until then were known only to folk literature. We are witnessing a cultural explosion (for which the Russian semiotician Mikhail Lotman used the term B3pMB). Once forbidden erotic themes move from the periphery of culture to the center. Homosexual motives also penetrate to literature. But this is not a literature that would shed light to life, relationships and mentality of the members of the LGBT community. In principle this is just a procedure for shock therapy of a Soviet man. The effect is understandable: used to established artistic and literary norms the post-Soviet man distanced himself from the shocking descriptions of sexuality as something that has a traditional connection with the antichrist and is related to sin. Many cases of this kind of shock therapy that were only harmful the LGBT community are found today in the works of important contemporary writers: Eduard Limonov, Vladimir Sorokin, Viktor Yerofeyev. We must accept this shock therapy as an occurrence of schizoanalytic postmodernism, which brings to the surface the suppressed part of the cultural unconscious, and as a result arouses the feeling of disgust in the readers. This is a carnivalisation process, when the suppressed now becomes visible in canonised literature, but it still does not mean a qualitative stage in the development of (homo) erotic discourse. Postmodernist Russian literature does not deal in depth with the questions of the body, and therefore also not with sexuality and homosexuality as an integral part of Russian culture and society. It is clear that (homo) erotic and brutal motives are merely a procedure by which literature is unmasking something that is prohibited, but in fact it only strenghtens its prohibition. Therefore it becomes understandable that the (homo) erotic discourse in Russia cannot become the subject of scientific treatment, since such discourse is too foreign to the academic study of Beaufitul. 161 miha javornik ► ro^y6ow/-afl Literature and Russian Holiness Of course, this does not mean that there was no other LGBT literature during the (post) Soviet period. But such literature is still only on the periphery, as an expression of marginality. When homosexual writers at the time of the SU - for example, Gennady Trifonov or Yevgeny Kharitonov - tried to develop (homo) erotic and sexual discourse in literature, this was considered in public per definition as obscene. Censorship watched their work closely, and the authors had to remove or mask homosexual love testimonies. With the exception of Kharitonov, who was regarded as a promising homoerotic author (he is even nominated by some people as a Russian gay icon), in today's Russia it was not possible to develop a homoerotic discourse in literature that would be worth mentioning as the subject of Russian scholarly research. It is commendable that some modern creators (eg Dmitry Kuzmin, Jaroslav Mogutin) try to include in so called elite literature is a homosexual motives and stylistic expression of the sensibility of the marginalized community at the level of established, publicly recognized literature. Unfortunately, these experiments remain on the margines and can not penetrate to the center. Periods of relative freedom, paradoxically attributed to them by the names of the Golden and the Silver Era, often bind to periods of chaos and confusion (smut) in the historical performance when the future is not clear and plurality raises doubts about so called bright future, which again speaks of the flutter and fear of the elite or center. The reaction is foreseeable: after the periods of the Golden and the Silver Age, it seems a good to limit the freedom of all the different (and thus the LGBT community) that don't subordinate to the center. Obviously, the ruling elite in today's Russia has become aware of the dangers of over-freedom in time: in 2013 it adopted the law on so called 162 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications prohibition of homosexual propaganda, and some later on the legal ban on the use of curses in public and in literature. The period that awaits Russian society is exclusive and xenophobic to all marginal cultures and can not be in favor of LGBT literature, since rooted deep in Russian mentality, this is still deeply committed to the Word of God and to the Beauty of the Language: The Word is still sacred and there is no room for it sin. $ 163 miha javornik ► ro^y6ow/-afl Literature and Russian Holiness Literature BEPflHEB, hhko^ah, 1991-2012: Co6pauue couunenuu. ACT, A36yKa, npaBga, Acrpe.B /.../. Ky3tMHH, flMHTPHH, 2008: Xopowo 6bimb MU6UM. MocKBa: H^O. MOSS, KEVIN, 1997: Out of the Blue: Russia's Hidden Gay Literature. Gay Sunshine Press. leblanc, denis ronald, 2009: Slavic sins of the flesh: food sex and carnal appetite in the 19th century Russian fiction. UPNE. AOTMAH, MHXAHi, 2000: CeMWC$epa. HcKyccTBO-CnE. MoryTHH, hpoc^ab, 2001: TepMondepubiu Mycxyn. HcnpaMuenw dm Mbixa. H^O-MocKBa. nymKHH, a^ekcah^p: Taunue 3anucKU 1836-1837 zodoe. [https://libking.ru/books/home-/home-sex/44884-a-pushkin-taynye-zapiski-1836-1837-godov.html (15.4.2019)]. TPHfOHOB, rEHHAflHH, 2005: Cemxa. TwpeMHuU poMan. HHanpecc. xaphtohob, EBrEHHH, 1993: Cne3u Ha u,eemax: Couunenua e 2-x xnuzax. ^ypHa.-MocKBa. 164 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications Povzetek Zanimivo je, da se vse do današnjega časa v Rusiji ne pojavljajo raziskave homoseksualne kulture in literature, čeprav je v zahodnem svetu danes že kar nekaj raziskovalnih centrov, ki se ukvarjajo z vprašanjem LGBT kulture. Za razliko od posebnih smeri študija na posameznih univerzah zahoda je v Rusiji omenjena tematika še vedno tabu. Korak nazaj je prinesel leta 2013 sprejet o prepovedi propagande netradicio-nalnih seksualnih odnosov sredi mladoletnikov (3aKOH 3anpem,arom,MM nponaraHfly HeTpaflM^MOHHwx ceRcya.BHwx 0TH0meHMM cpegu Hec0BepmeHH0.eTHMx). Tako zunaj Rusije kot v sami Rusiji je med svobodomiselnimi ljudmi sprožil številne obsodbe. Posledično je prepoved vnesla strah me pripadnike LGBT skupnosti in Rusijo ponovno potisnila v čas, ko je vladalo mračnjaštvo. Vprašanje se postavlja samo po sebi: zakaj je temu tako? Pri razmerju književnost in LGBT kultura v Rusiji, je treba izhajati iz ambivalentnega odnosa Rusov do Zakona. Že od začetkov ruske države je bila homoseksualnost z zakonom oz. kanonskim pravom strogo prepovedana. Dejansko pa je bilo homoseksualnosti veliko in so jo tolerirali. A če je Božja beseda sveta, je sveto tudi vse, kar je zapisano v leposlovju - knjiga je nosilka resnice in lepote. V njej ni prostora za govor o homoseksualnosti. Razen manjših, zamaskiranih homoseksualnih odstopov pri Lermontovu, Gogolju, Tolstoju, Dostojevskem ali Čehovu, je že pisati o homoseksualnosti greh. Prepoved traja do konca 19. stoletja, do obdobja dekadence in simbolizma. V tem času igra pomembno vlogo Vasilij Rozanov s prvimi teoretskimi razpravami o homoseksualnosti v ruski kulturi. To je čas prvega coming-out ruskih pisateljev: najpomembnejšo sled v lezbični literaturi zapusti Marina Cvetajeva, 165 miha javornik ► ro^y6ow/-afl Literature and Russian Holiness v gejevski Mihail Kuzmin. Simbolistični pesnik Kuzmin se v svoji zadnji pesniški zbirki Postrv razbija led (1928) odmakne od vseh literarnih konvencij in njegovi nastopi v javnosti pomenijo prvo promocijo ge-jevske kulture v Rusiji. Stalinistični totalitarizem v tridesetih letih, ki sledi še vedno dialogičnemu postoktobrskem obdobju, pokoplje vsakršen up: v sovjetski literaturi je (homo)seksualnost spet tabu. Ruski konceptualizem ob koncu sovjetskega imperija prične to idejo ponovno rušiti. V literaturi se spet pojavijo prizori homoseksualnosti (Eduard Limonov) in v devetdesetih letih se porodijo literarni poskusi razviti homoseksualne teme (Jevgenij Haritonov). Tudi to upanje zamre v obdobju vladanja Vladimirja Putina. Ob pritiskih pravoslavne cerkve vse bolj narašča homofobija in ponovno uzakonja ponavljajočo se idejo: Beseda je vendar sveta. Miha Javornik Miha Javornik is a full professor at the Department of Slavic Studies at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, where he lectures on modern and contemporary Russian literature, and literary theory. He is specialised in the history of contemporary Russian literature and cultures. His work is centred on the notions such as mythology in literary and socio-political history, and the contemporary phenomena of the information age, for instance the nature of identity in digital communication. 166 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications 167 doi - 10.13137/2283-5482/28128 Peripheral Modernism and the World-System: Slovenian Literature and Theory of the Nineteen-Sixties Periferni modernizem in svetovni sistem: slovenska književnost in teorija šestdesetih let 20. stoletja $ marko juvan - mjuvan@zrc-sazu.si slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications In response to recent pluralization of modernism, the author adopts Jameson's singular modernity to argue that, in the capitalist world-system divided between hegemonic and dependent literary fields, modernism exists only through its particular manifestations. During the 1968 student revolt, Slovenian late modernism - in-between peripheral phenomenon caught in the Cold War antagonism - displays a universal feature of the period: its transformative impulse resulting from "the imaginative proximity of social revolution" (Anderson). Embedded in the global insurgency, Slovenian innovative trends of the 1960s synchronized with western centers of modernity. It brought together critical theory and experimental artistic practice to reshape writing, literary institution, the subject, and society at large. MODERNISM, CENTER VS. PERIPHERY, SLOVENIAN LITERATURE, STUDENT MOVEMENT, REVOLUTION, NEO-AVANT-GARDE, WORLD-SYSTEM V odzivu na nedavne poskuse decentralizacije in pluralizacije modernizma članek povzema Jamesonovo koncepcijo »edinstvene modernosti« kot izhodišče za tezo, da v kapitalističnem svetovnem sistemu, razdeljenem med hegemonistična in odvisna literarna polja, modernizem obstaja le prek svojih posebnih manifestacij. Med študentskim uporom leta 1968 je slovenski pozni modernizem - kot pojav vmesne periferije, ujete v antagonizem hladne vojne - znova prikazal univerzalno značilnost modernizma: njegov trans-formativni impulz, ki izhaja iz »predstavne bližine socialne revolucije« (Anderson). Slovenski modernizem šestdesetih let, vključen v svetovno uporništvo, se je sinhroniziral z zahodnimi središči modernosti, revitali-ziranimi z energijo istega svetovnega dogodka. Združil je kritično teorijo in eksperimentalno umetniško prakso, da bi preoblikoval pisanje, literarno institucijo, subjekt in družbo. MODERNIZEM, CENTER VS. PERIFERIJA, SLOVENSKA KNJIŽEVNOST, ŠTUDENTSKO GIBANJE, REVOLUCIJA, NEOAVANTGARDA, SVETOVNI SISTEM 169 marko juvan Peripheral Modernism and the World-System The present paper was written in the frame of the research project entitled May '68 in Literature and Theory: The Last Season of Modernism in France, Slovenia, and the World (J6-9384) funded by Slovenian Research Agency. In the current configuration of the world systems of language, economy, and literature, Slovenia and its national literary field - with texts written in a minor language for a slim readership of a small country - structurally occupy one of the many peripheral positions.1 Specifically, Slovenian literature is located in the "in-between peripherally" (cf. Totosy de Zepetnek) of a space containing regions that have been geopolitically labeled as Central Europe, Eastern Europe, East-Central Europe, South-Eastern Europe, or Western Balkans. The fortune of this zone relied on the Habsburg, the Ottoman, and Russian empires in the modern age, whereas in the second half of the twentieth century it depended on the relations between the center of the world capitalism in the West and its ideological-political counterpart in the communist East. Located in this in-between peripherality, which the Conference of Yalta had split on the so-called First and Second Worlds, the Republic of Slovenia - as a constitutive part of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia - formed a second-degree in-between geopolitical unit in the second half of the twentieth century. It was a buffer state between the socialist and capitalist empires ever since the Cominform Resolution of 1948 until the nineties, when the South Slavic federation ended up in a bloody civil war that followed the fall of the Berlin wall and the decay of the Soviet bloc. Yugoslavia played the buffer role with its system of a socialist self-management, a leading role in the Non-alignment movement, and its openness towards the West. Given that Slovenia is but one of the peripheries of the world literary system, the question arises whether the analysis of its literary modernism might tell anything relevant about the universality of modernism as a global phenomenon or such an analysis merely complements the record of modernism's particular manifestations. Susan S. Friedman and Fredric Jameson take different sides in their 170 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications response to the challenge recently posed by modernist studies that adopted a de-centered notion of alternative or multiple modernisms. Astradur Eysteinsson and Vivian Liska (2007b: 1-3) remind us that as early as 1968, i.e., in the era of "old" modernist studies, Frank Ker-mode discussed "modernisms" in the plural, what foreshadows the "new" modernist studies' stress on the poetic, spatial, and temporal heterogeneity of modernism. Inspired by theories of globalization, cosmopolitanism, and transnationalism, literary studies have recently put forth the notion of "alternative modernities" in order to overcome western-centric characterization and periodization of global modernism (cf. Doyle & Winkiel 2005b; Ramalho Santos & Sousa Ribeiro 2008b; Friedman 2008; Wollaeger 2012; Goldwyn & Silverman 2016b). Common to different strands of new modernism studies is their rejection of a general concept of modernism derived from descriptions of a narrow canon of exemplary texts, mostly of French and Anglo-American metropolitan origin. The authors of these texts mostly did not call themselves "modernists" but were designated as such only retrospectively, in the nineteen-sixties, when literary critics recognized them as models grounding the general historical term of international modernism (cf. Škulj 1991). Such a reductive determination of modernist prototypes implied Eurochronology through which global supremacy of the West masked itself as a neutral instrument of world-historical calibration (cf. Friedman 2015: 85-92). Seen from this perspective, the origins of modernism as "international style" are supposed to be in Apollinaire, Proust, Joyce, Woolf, Eliot, and other western celebrities of the period between 1880 and 1930. Accordingly, the explanation of the world-wide dissemination of their innovative breakthroughs resides in the diffusionist model of waves emanating from metropolises (Paris, London, New York, Berlin) 171 marko juvan Peripheral Modernism and the World-System From this, it follows that it is not appropriate to periodize global modernism in terms of "the Greenwich meridian of literature" (Casanova: 127-130). Paris, London, or New York cannot figure as absolute measures of modernity or belat-edness. In the perspective of parataxis, modernism escapes linear temporality and its focus on the first three decades of the western twentieth century. to peripheral zones where they become subject to belated imitation and appropriation. Faced with extensive multilingual resources of the present-day literary history and critiques of colonial or imperial mindset, the advocates of multiple, alternative modernisms argue that diffusionism is, epistemologically, a dead end. As an antidote, Susan Stanford Friedman introduces modernism from a transnational and postcolonial point of view. Following Mikhail Bakhtin's dialogism and Edward Soja's human geography, she describes modernism as "cultural parataxis," that is, a polycentric, multilingual, and nonhierarchical structure of cultural flows (Friedman 2007: 37-38). To be sure, even though peripheral and border zones can hardly avoid metropolitan influence they have several global centers at their disposal; moreover, peripheries may also exchange their cultural goods directly with other marginal zones, establish unmediated contacts with other civilizations, and struggle against global or regional hegemons (35-36). The paratactic approach also recognizes bidirectional interaction between centers and peripheries through which weaker literary fields, too, develop singular literary discourses that because of locally specific developments variously respond to global modernity.2 Heterogeneous semiotic material flowing into peripheries through cultural transfer interferes in homegrown literary repertoires. The import grafted into the layers of indigenous traditions becomes instrumental in reactivating the forgotten potentials of past artistic codes and responding to locally particular constellation of discourse. Phenomena of modernism produced at the edge thus necessarily depart from the standard dictated by a single center. They also respond to different historical conjectures what changes the significance of forms that mimic earlier metropolitan patterns. 172 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications Dionyz Durisin, who was the first to theorize world literature as a mega-system of individual and regional literary systems, would characterize the temporality of peripheral modernisms in terms of irregular or accelerated development.3 In the light of his concept, literary movements and styles do not follow one another along the standard "Greenwich" timeline represented by the evolution of global centers but may coincide or they evolve at higher speed and skip evolutionary states deemed regular (cf. Durisin: 43-48, 159-160, 170-183). Admittedly, the alternative views outlined above expanded modernism's spatial and temporal scope, thereby diversifying the record of its properties as a global phenomenon. By recognizing modernist intellectual and stylistic structures in phenomena that depart from western-centric standards and prototypes, ingenious deconstructions of the idea of the norm-giving core impressively promoted the politically correct principle of equality. However, they denied global hegemony of western modernity and its background of the economic, military, and political supremacy. Deconstructive de-centering only masked the real-existing power relations with an invented literary-historical narrative about the aesthetic equivalence of plural modernisms. In other words, even though recent modernism studies are aware of and frustrated by the world-systemic inequality, their surrogate narrative secludes the aesthetic realm from the capitalist mode of production and refrains from interpreting plural modernist forms as local sediments of the global symbolic struggle with (post)colonial and (post) imperial dependence. Moreover, if considered from purely intra-disciplinary point-of-view of literary history, recent piling up of heterogeneous phenomena under the umbrella term of modernism risks the inflation of the notion. As a historical concept, modernism in the plural is on the verge The term of accelerated development of literature was proposed by Georgi Gachev in his 1964 monograph on the Bulgarian literature of the first half of the nineteenth century when Bulgaria was subjected to the Ottoman Empire. As so-called young literature at the margins of Europe, Bulgarian literature was supposed to catch up with the European center and go through the entire evolution of European literature in just a few decades. This condensation resulted in syncretic co-presence of different period styles. 173 marko juvan Peripheral Modernism and the World-System of becoming meaningless inasmuch it tends to ignore the role of rapports de fait, that is, the structural dominance of distinctive representations that respond to a historically specific conjecture and intensively circulate across individual literary fields and languages within a delimited segment of time. In her monumental Planetary Modernisms, Susan S. Friedman expands the notion of modernism temporally and spatially to an extent where it loses historical value. It mutates into a transhistorical type of literature that recurs all along from the antiquity to the present, from the Far East to the West, and from the North to the South. It follows that neither decentering pluralization nor transhistorical reinterpretation of the concept of modernism present valid alternatives to western-centrism. What is needed is instead a historical analysis of the conditions in which the metropolitan idea of modernity emerged and gained global currency. As Anthony Giddens (1990: 1, 174-178), Fredric Jameson (2002: 17-95), and even Friedman (2015: 121) point out, it was in the West that the self-awareness of breaking with tradition, radical change, and accelerated current of innovations arrived at its concept. The process started in the late seventeenth century with the famous Querelle des anciens et des modernes and culminated in the aftermath of the industrial revolution. Ambivalent experiences of contemporaneity accompanied it; the unpredictability of the dynamic, open-ended present awoke both optimistic progressivism and the trauma of permanent crisis and instability. As it is known, the origin of the term of modernism is European as well (cf. Skulj 2009). Introduced in German-speaking countries as a contemporaneous designation of the fin-de-siècle art, it came to denote more experimental Anglo-American and French artworks between roughly 1880 and 1930 that - as purely aesthetic expressions of individuals - refashioned 174 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications politically more resonating collective techniques, principles, and forms promoted by European avant-garde artistic groups from Symbolists to Surrealists. This concept of modernism appeared in literary criticism only in historical retrospection, in the nineteen-sixties. After all, it is no doubt that the West coined the notion of modernity to narrate and ideologically legitimize its hegemony within the capitalist world-system. Correspondingly, the idea (i.e., theory or ideology) of modernism along with practices informed by this idea were able to gain universal validity through a multitude of particular articulations (central and peripheral alike) only due to the global supremacy of core states in the realms of economy, politics, military, and culture. As it has been mentioned above, two recent theories of modernism - antithetically responding to the pluralization of the concept - establish the framework in which particular insights in the universality of modernism become relevant. Jameson analyzes plural manifestations of modernism within "singular modernity" of the capitalist world-system whose centers produced a correspondent ideology of modernism. Contrariwise, Friedman (2008, 2015) interprets plurality of modernisms in terms of intellectual typology. In her view, the multiplicity of modernisms is but a twentieth-century actualization of a transhistorical pattern. Together with its aesthetic and symbolic articulation in modernism, the recurring modernity transcends the post-Renaissance West. Europe and the US no longer figure as the sole sources of modernity/modernism. The type of socio-historical constellation Friedman understands as modernity extends far deeper into the past and stretches to more extensive areas, for example, the Tang Dynasty or Mongolian Empire. Even though Friedman commits a logical error in universalizing a particular historical content of modernity/modernism,4 her utterly In the final analysis, her generalization of western categories intellectually colonizes the rest of the world in spite of her original aim to protect the rest from the colonial dominance of the West by "democratizing" modernism as an all-around and recurrent typological constellation. 175 marko juvan Peripheral Modernism and the World-System self-reflective challenge to mainstream modernist studies seems productive. Above all, Friedman's consistent pairing of modernity and modernism with the rule, expansion, transformation, and fall of empires is essential. In her view, empires generate accelerated dynamics of change because their authorities have to provide conditions for the ongoing exchange of goods, capital, and labor within vast and heterogeneous territories (multilingual and multi-ethnic), as well as establish the timely spread of information from centers to peripheries. Traffic routes, speedy transportation, versatile administration, and innovative means of communication enable control over the empire. Considering that Friedman discusses historical phenomena of western modernity and modernism along with their impact on the Third World in the imperial context, the study of Slovenian experimental literature of the nineteen-sixties may shed light on the modernity characterizing the buffer zone between the First and the Second Worlds during the Cold War. The second concept that frames the study of peripheral modernism as relevant is Jameson's dialectic of the particular and the universal. In a similar fashion as Friedman, Jameson criticizes the assumption that there exists "a norm for the development of modernism and its aesthetics" or "some master evolutionary line from which each of these national developments can be grasped as a kind of deviation" (Jameson: 182). He recalls Marx's description of capitalism "for which each national trajectory - including the central illustration, and the oldest one, of British capitalism as such - is uniquely overdetermined by the empirical specificities of the national cultural and historical situation as such" (ibid.). Thus, "there is no 'basic' historical paradigm, all the paths of capitalist development are unique and unrepeatable" (ibid.). From the perspective of Marxian dialectics, the very universality 176 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications of modernism, too, lacks empirical actualization that would paradig-matically represent this universality; what is universal is enacted only through its particulars, all of them "specific and historically unique" (183). To put it differently: the universality of modernism articulates through a processual structure of contradictions that, within the singularity of a historical period, determines the production and consumption of artifacts in a transnational space systemically divided between cores and peripheries. Resulting from the industrial revolution and reaching the stage of imperialism, the concentration of capital in core states of the world boosted their economic expansion, accelerated development, and innovative breakthroughs in all fields. At the level of cultural production, this gave rise to metropolitan areas, the hubs of global intellectual traffic and social networking. Metropolises disseminate worldwide both the art forms they import or remake and cultural goods they produce from abundant domestic resources. Global cities attract cultural producers from peripheral regions and employ their artifacts as raw material for the production of the aesthetic surplus value through cultural branding (e.g., claiming priority in inventing an influential trend). However, growing commodification of cultural production in the twentieth century jeopardized literary producers - who struggled for the aesthetic autonomy of literature ever since Romanticism - with the needs of the mass consumption. Metropolitan modernisms in France, the UK, and the US attempted to respond to this challenge with more radical aesthetic experimentation focused on languages of the arts. According to Jameson, this autotelic and self-referential gesture sought for conceptual legitimization and, finally, elaborated it in the form of the ideology of modernism; invented in the second half of the twentieth century, the ideology of modernism underpinned 177 marko juvan Peripheral Modernism and the World-System contemporary art practices in their endeavor to separate from the mass culture (Jameson: 171-180). In addition to experimental formalism, modernist response to commodification also encompassed representations of resentment caused by instability of the author role such as the dissociation of the subject, alienation, dehumanization, dystopia, absurd, and negative emotions. With their markets, raw materials, and low-cost labor force, peripheries, by definition, depend on the core and tend to embrace nationalism in their struggle for cultural autonomy or political independence. Just like their metropolitan counterparts, modernists in European peripheries had to cope with the commodification of artistic production and the rise of mass culture. However, they found themselves in ambivalent position: on the one hand, they had to place themselves vis-à-vis a particular tradition of nationalism in their dominated country and hereby risk to succumb to its retrograde, anti-cosmopolitan tendencies; on the other hand, they interacted with contemporaneous patterns of cosmopolitan modernism which, under the guise of universality, emanated from hegemonic centers. General laws of transnational literary evolution postulated by Franco Moretti (2000: 3) also apply to peripheral modernisms: a periphery makes a hybrid "compromise" between the form imported from the center (for example, stream of consciousness, collage, or dehumanization) and local material or narrative voice. Through cultural import and indigenization of metropolitan forms, peripheral modernisms establish symbolic equivalence with central modernity or, in other words, they synchronize with the temporality of the center. The effort to synchronize with contemporaneity - in its openness and accelerated becoming - is the universal imperative of modernism. At the same time, however, the appropriation and transformation of metropolitan 178 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications modernist samples testify to a conscious or spontaneous cosmopolitan solidarity of globally unrecognized marginal authors with world-famous core modernists in their international opposition to bourgeoisie and commodification of art. Commenting on Marx and Marshall Berman, Perry Anderson pointed out that capitalist modernity, with its decomposition of rigid social order endemic to the ancien regime, aroused "a profound disorientation and insecurity, frustration and despair, concomitant with, indeed inseparable from the sense of enlargement and exhilaration, the new capacities and feelings, liberated at the same time" (Anderson: 98). To Anderson, the twentieth-century term modernism "signals the arrival of a coherent vocabulary for an experience of modernity that preceded it" (102). He interprets modernism as historical conjuncture in the field of cultural production triangulated by the relations to three factors: first, the institutionalized bourgeois high culture and its post-aristocratic academicism; second, technologies of the second industrial revolution and the ensuing mass consumption; and third, the imaginative proximity of social revolution (104). Within this "cultural field of force," the artistic discourses, driven by contradictory experiences of modernity (split between the sense freedom and alienation), variously reacted to uncertainties resulting from the accelerated socio-economic dynamics. According to Anderson, typical of different modernisms are the historical conjuncture from which they arose and the traits of their ambivalent response to it, ranging from celebration to rejection. Even though modernist writers strongly opposed academicism, they resorted to the classical repertoire of high literature to ground their quasi-aristocratic position vis-à-vis contemporary mass society, rapid social transformation, and the emergent labor movement. As Anderson puts it: 179 marko juvan Peripheral Modernism and the World-System Anderson remarks that England did not produce a transnational modernist movement whose importance could match Dadaism, Futurism, Surrealism, or Expressionism (102). [T]he persistence of the anciens regimes,' and the academicism concomitant with them, provided a critical range of cultural values against which insurgent forms of art could measure themselves, but also in terms of which they could partly articulate themselves... the old order, precisely in its still partially aristocratic colouration, afforded a set of available codes and resources from which the ravages of the market as an organizing principle of culture and society - uniformly detested by every species of modernism - could also be resisted. (Anderson: 105) Parallel to Jameson and Moretti, Anderson maintains that the singular modernist "socio-political conjuncture," which was geographically unevenly distributed even across the West,5 passed away after WWII when modernist art, cut off from the triangle of social forces, lost its vitality and - in the conditions of mass consumption and victorious institutionalization of bourgeois economic and political order - continued to evolve in the framework of much more limited neo-avant-garde movements and the gallery system's demands for ever new seasonal trends (Anderson: 106-108). While "the image or hope for revolution faded away in the West," the "Sovietization of Eastern Europe canceled any realistic prospect of a socialist overthrow of advanced capitalism, for a whole historical period" (107). Anderson concedes that the post-WWII Third World knows "a kind of shadow configuration of what once prevailed in the First World" and thus continues to produce its particular versions of modernism; however, this cannot rejuvenate modernism and restore its singular energy stemming from the historical conjuncture of the first decades of the twentieth century (109). It is during this waning of modernist art in the First and the Second World "that the ideology and cult of modernism was born. The conception itself is scarcely older than the 1950s, as a widespread currency" (108). Just 180 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications like Jameson, Anderson links the introduction of the term "modernism" as a universal designation with the ideology of modernism, which reacted to diminished importance of high art forms in the post-WWII consumer societies. In addition to Jameson and Friedman, contributors to collective volumes Geomodernisms, Translocal Modernisms, Global Modernisms and Mediterranean Modernism stress multitude of modernisms, which hybridize global formal patterns with local perspectives and material, in particular in the postcolonial context. Pluralization and decentralization of modernism have undoubtedly contributed to a better understanding of its peripheral varieties, albeit primarily those from the postcolonial world. The recent world literature studies witness the affirmation of major non-European and postcolonial literatures at the cost of further marginalization of small and (semi-)peripheral European literatures (cf. D'Haen). In a similar vein, the new modernist studies, albeit open to the overlooked achievements of the Third World, rarely consider minor literatures of the First World and even more rarely those from the Second World. The neglected in-between area includes various Balkan modernisms (Bahun: 28-30) and modernisms of smaller literatures of Central Europe. The reasons for the disinterest of modernist studies in the former socialist world might be the ideological barrier between the western and eastern blocs and the assumption that socialist modernism hardly existed because it was at odds with the official aesthetic doctrines. Moreover, modernisms in the former socialist world remained at the margin of interest because of a more general attitude of western metropolises. In their eyes, peripheral modernisms seem unattractive because they supposedly cannot evoke radical otherness whose "exoticism" might reanimate their petrified repertoires (e.g., African art in Picasso's Cubism; cf. Friedman 2015: 66). 181 marko juvan Peripheral Modernism and the World-System Always hungry for innovation, metropolitan modernism expects from its east-central European counterparts but pale copies of its inventions. In my opinion, what Moretti's formula of compromise needs today is neither its denial nor reinterpretation of the idea of compromise but rather an inversion of hierarchy implied in the priority of metropolitan form over local material and perspective. Local perspectives and materials deserve a more thorough examination. Through these particulars, we may gain access to critical world-systemic aspects of modernism. Not only introspection of local problematics through the lens of imported aesthetic forms belongs to the local perspective, but also extro-spection, that is, how peripheral authors envision their position in the local and global contexts. Local perspective is the site where peripheral literary producers have to come to terms with their subjugation to the adopted foreign form as the aesthetic medium of economic-political dominance. Consequently, the authorial ambivalence arises from the tensions between the particularity of a dependent literary field and the universality of capitalism, with modernism as its inherent aesthetic representation and critique. To my knowledge, a comparative synthesis of the developments and varieties of literary modernisms in East-Central Europe is still pending. However, the introductory surveys framing case studies included in the first volume of History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe allow for sketching transnational coordinates of Slovenian and other peripheral modernisms of the area. After WWII, the countries in this region were ruled by Communist parties mostly dependent on the Russian-Soviet center or inspired by its methods, as in the case of Yugoslavia after its 1948 break with Stalin. Based on the sociological argument that totalitarian or authoritarian political systems shaped their literary cultures, Marcel Cornis-Pope and John Neubauer term the period from 182 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications 1945 to 1989 as an epoch of "communism." In their literary-historical scheme, the so-called communist literary period follows the epochs of the nineteenth-century "nationalism" and "modernism"; the latter term designates literatures of the first half of the twentieth century (Cornis-Pope & Neubauer 2004b: 7-12; Neubauer 2004: 321-322). In the History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe, the period of modernism defined as aesthetic category finds itself between the two periods whose dominant lies outside literature and aesthetics, in the sphere of politics: the nineteenth-century nationalism and communism of the second half of the twentieth century. However, this does not mean that modernism vanished after 1945. Similar to the First and the Third Worlds, where modernist phenomena and currents prospered in the decades following the conventional western-centric periodization limit (Modernist Studies Association places modernism between the years of 1880 and 1940; cf. Friedman 2015: 89-92), the post-WWII modernism of the socialist world entered its late phase and finally mutated into postmodernism. Cornis-Pope's and Neubauer's periodization, if read through Moretti's formula of compromise, implies that the aesthetic models imported from Western centers of modernism to East-Central European peripheries made the compromise with local materials and perspectives determined by the political context of communism. It would be misleading to interpret the hegemony of the Communist party in terms of totalitarian control over the intellectual and artistic production. Cornis-Pope (2004: 40) points out that in the literary cultures of East-Central Europe - not only in non-aligned Yugoslavia - critical and artistic resistance to official ideology was possible, albeit it risked repressive measures. Recent analysis has shown that communism in the Soviet empire was not monolithic and could not control the entire ideological sphere; the rivalry between Soviet countries 183 marko juvan Peripheral Modernism and the World-System On the one hand, modernist phenomena in the East-Central European in-between periphery were heir to pre-war domestic and foreign modernist currents that had been violently interrupted by the change of the social system; on the other hand, they came under the influence of Western post-war modernist trends, such as existentialism, the drama of the absurd, nouveau roman, and others. diversified communism, whereas their intellectual production was too big to be mastered by the authorities (Cornis-Pope, l. c.). Thus, the post-war history of many second-world literary cultures includes an unpredictable rhythm of changes between phases of harsh repression and shorter periods of relative artistic-intellectual liberty, as well as relocations of the foci of repression. For example, at the time the oppression was worst in Hungary, Poland enjoyed a temporary thaw (cf. Cornis-Pope & Neubauer 2004b: 36-37). Furthermore, the Iron Curtain was permeable, so that the bourgeois West could gradually trickle into the East through the controlled media, restricted trade, limited scientific and cultural exchange, and tourism. From the sixties onwards, porous boundaries made possible the import not only of urban mass culture (for example, jeans, TV, pop and rock, consumerism) but also of literature. The extent of western cultural transfer varied from country to country. While circulating on clandestine ways among dissidents, individual segments of cultural import also succeeded to reach public media. In general, modernist ideas and literary techniques started to gain prominence in East-Central Europe after 1956, after a period of socialist realist orthodoxy to which modernism represented petty-bourgeois decadence (Neubauer &Cornis-Pope: 90-94).6 As in-between periphery, East-Central Europe in the epoch of "communism" not only confronted western modernism with the official ideology emanating from the Soviet center but also embraced them in the horizon of the suppressed pre-war modernist legacies of the region. Even though Slovenian communists never really applauded to literary modernism (while they were quite open to modernist architecture and visual art) they tolerated it provided it remained hermetic, introspective, formalist or abstract, limited to the intellectual elite, 184 slavica terGESTINA 23 (2019/ii) - Echoes of Verifications and without explicit critical references to official ideology and social reality.7 In spite of sporadic dramatic conflicts with the authorities, Slovenian literary modernism by the late nineteen-sixties succeeded to address its educated audience not only through non-institutional media or self-publishing but also through state-owned and party-controlled printing, radio, and theater. Compared to the majority of east European communist regimes, modernization of culture according to western models was accepted with more tolerance in Slovenia, but only in the decades following Yugoslav 1948 break with the Soviet Union and the political campaign against "Stalinists" and "dogmatists." So-called Party liberals and reformists even encouraged cultural modernization, albeit in the frame of their political agenda. By allowing modernist trends to appear in journals, books, and theaters, Slovenian authorities demonstrated to eastern ideologues and western economic partners how progressive and democratic Yugoslav self-management was in comparison to the Soviet model. Nevertheless, such a tolerant attitude was unstable and unpredictable. As soon as the ruling party, involved in fraction struggles and rivalries with sister parties in other Yugoslav republics, got the feeling that critical intellectuals and writers might have endangered its monopoly it began to persecute them as intolerable "cultural opposition." Such an attitude entailed demonstrative acts of police repression, short-term imprisonments, hate campaigns in the media, bans of modernist journals and stages, and communist pressures upon printing houses, editorial boards, and so on (cf. Gabric: 1024-1035; Kos: 155-159; Vodopivec: 422-463). In the late nineteen-fifties and the sixties, the trend of so-called dark modernism emerged in Slovenia to combine existentialist feelings of horror, loneliness, and absurd - they were felt like an indirect refusal of the official collective belief in building a perfect communist society Rather than modernism, the existentialism with its political engagement, the émigré literature, and critical neorealist depiction of the socialist everyday troubled the communist ideologues, the Yugoslav and Slovenian included (cf. Gabric 945-947; Neubauer & Cornis-Pope 100-101). 185 MARKO JUVAN ► Peripheral Modernism and the World-System The stylistic hy-bridity of this kind is also characteristic of the poetry of Srečko Kosovel (1904-1926), the protagonist of the early phase of Slovenian modernism (Juvan 2005). - with mostly Surrealist or metaphors and post-Expressionist deformation. As mentioned above, Anderson claims that western modernism established its profile through ambivalent relations to aristocratic and bourgeois traditionalism. In its struggle against worn-out academicism, modernism leaned on aesthetic elitism in the effort to find its way to sophisticated audiences during the expansion of mass culture (Anderson: 105). In the circumstances of one-party communist rule, Slovenian poetry of dark modernism applied the pattern described by Anderson to the struggle with academicism of a different kind. Through satirical allusions, allegorical coding, and "nihilist" affects, dark modernism undermined collectivist progressivism characteristic of communist modernity. In the same vein, it attacked residual ideologemes of nineteenth-century nationalism and emptied Roman Catholic symbols that profoundly influenced Slovenian intellectual history since the Middle Ages. Through tacit allusions to dissident political perspectives on society and tradition, dark modernism exposed the poetic self to the unconscious and the dread of nothingness (cf. Juvan 2000: 237-269). Following the heterogeneity of pre-WWII modernism in Euro-American metropolises,8 the poetics of dark modernism took various shapes. To begin with, Dane Zajc (1929-2005) wrote grotesque phantasmagorias expressed in a mythopoetic, post-expressionist, or surrealist manner. Poetic cycles by Gregor Strniša (1930-1987) are fractal compositions in which modern relativism and phenomenologically pure images borrowed from folklore, medieval art, and astronomy suggest a delirious horror of nothingness. Finally, Veno Taufer (*1933) and Saša Vegri (1934-2010) opted for imagist montage of reality fragments or quotations from diverse cultural traditions, with which they ironically and critically tackled the aberrations of contemporary Slovenia 186 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications - its consumerism, mass culture, and the ideological limitations of the communist rule. Liberal reformists took power in Slovenian communist politics around 1968 (what coincided with Dubcek's Prague Spring) and, in their efforts at social modernization, cautiously adopted elements of western market economy and loosened ideological restraints. It was this unique historical conjecture in which modernization of the capitalist West hybridized with modernization of the socialist East that established the context in which Anderson's imaginative proximity to social revolution revolutionized modernism itself (cf. Neubauer & Cornis-Pope: 94-103; Cepic: 1054-1066, Gabric: 1066-1069; Vodopivec: 388-407). During the 1968 student revolt, Slovenian late modernism - in-between peripheral phenomenon caught in the Cold War antagonism - came to articulate a universal feature of modernism: its transformative impulse resulting from the close vicinity of the transnational revolutionary movement. During the world-wide insurgency of students and workers, Slovenian modernism of the 1960s synchronized with western centers of modernity agitated by the same global event. It brought together critical theory and experimental artistic practice with the hope to be able to reshape writing, literary institution, the subject, and society at large. Liberal reforms in Slovenia accompanied by the ideological thaw made it possible to more openly articulate and express the growing dissatisfaction with social problems such as unemployment, the divide between relatively wealthy communist elites and the working class, unequal access to higher education, inefficient political leadership, and others. The problems were most acutely felt by the young generation who, irritated by the cleft between the proclaimed ideals of a socialist revolution and the inert, decadent rule of post-revolutionary elites, sought its place in the society (cf. Klasic). 187 MARKO JUVAN ► Peripheral Modernism and the World-System In circumstances in which party "liberalism" let western capitalism, consumerism, elite and mass culture flow into the system of the Communist-led self-management, youngsters in Slovenia, Serbia, and Croatia found inspiration in the transnational student movement that broke out in western metropoles around 1968. Yugoslav students - supported by several professors and public intellectuals who criticized the deficiencies of Yugoslav society from neo-Marxist and existentialist perspectives - joined the anti-imperialist, pacifist, and anti-capitalist revolutionary movement of their western comrades who allied with working-class protesters. Students of the universities of Ljubljana, Zagreb, and Belgrade mostly adopted practices of the 1968-1972 international insurgency such as mass demonstrations, strikes, teach-ins, and occupations of universities, adjusting the forms of a self-organized combative multitude to challenges of Yugoslav socialism. In general terms, they criticized socio-economic inequality, rigid organization and worn-out curriculum of the university, unprincipled Yugoslav foreign policy, consumerism, and anti-modern moralism as facets of what they understood as a large-scale betrayal of the original ideals of the WW2 Partisan revolution. In France, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere, the cross-national revolutionary revolt of students and workers of the "long 1968" intertwined - or, was at least co-extensive with - with the outburst of radical modernist theories, critical philosophy, as well as neo-avantgarde and experimental art practices that opposed commodification or academization of the art; these radically modernist trends also gained ground in Yugoslavia. Western neo-avant-gardes (for example, Guy Debord's Situationism) corresponded to the political activism of the radical Left ranging from anarchism through Trotskyism to Maoism. Mostly outside political parties of the traditional Left, the 188 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications various factions of the New Left fought against the hegemony of the capitalist world-system and experimented with grassroots forms of socio-political organization. At that period, the Frankfurt school, Sartre's existentialist and Althusserian structuralist Marxism, Maoism, Lacanian psychoanalysis, Tel Quel circle with nouveau roman, experimental stages, conceptualism, and transnational neo-avantgarde groups (Fluxus, COBRA, Situationist International) were part of what appeared a massive revolutionary transformation at all levels of the existing order. They went hand in hand with non-conformist lifestyles and counter-cultural phenomena such as sexual revolution, hippie communities, rock, and the underground. Inspired by counter-culture as well as radical modernist theories and art practices emanating from western metropolises, innovative currents of international relevance surfaced in the ranks of Slovenian postwar generation. For example, structuralist semiotics and the Ljubljana Lacanian circle (with Slavoj Žižek, Zoja Skušek, and Rastko Močnik), conceptualism and land art of the intermedial group OHO (it propagated anti-anthropocentric brand of modernism termed "re-ism"), concrete poetry, experimental theater, nouveau roman, and a modernist literary trend called "ludism" whose initiator was the poet Tomaž Šalamun (1941-2014). Ludist poetry, narrative, and theater based its transgressive play with all kinds of conventions (linguistic, social, literary, ideological, and literary) on Barthes's and Derrida's notions of writing as a free play of signifiers (cf. Juvan 2000: 270-293). It is no exaggeration to claim that it was in the nineteen-sixties and the early seventies when Ljubljana - albeit a small capital town of a peripheral socialist country - succeeded in synchronizing with radical neo-modernism of Paris and New York and joined what one is tempted to call, paraphrasing Moretti (2005: 209), "the last season 189 MARKO JUVAN ► Peripheral Modernism and the World-System of European modernism." In Slovenia, too, neo-modernist theories and art practices became entangled in a historical conjuncture (no less energetic as the one Anderson describes), in which masses of young people felt the imaginative proximity of global, multilayered revolution - individual, social, cultural, environmental, artistic, and sexual. With no lagging behind, Slovenian writers, theorists, and artists thus participated in the last ecstasy of modernist thinking, succeeded by the victory of the conservative counter-revolution and postmodernism in the First World and the increased ideological repression, crisis, and collapse of the Second World. As it was the case with neo-avant-garde ludism of the sixties, interdiscursive relations with structuralist theory fashioned another Slovenian modernist current called "linguism." Beginning in the sixties and extending well into postmodernism of the eighties, linguism drew on the metropolitan theory of text and writing advocated by Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Julia Kristeva, and Philippe Sollers. In the in-between socialist periphery, Slovenian linguism transposed topical metropolitan conceptions into its specific poetic idiom which concurrently drew on older models of the symbolist poésie pure and recent interpretations of modern poetry as dehumanization (cf. Friedrich). Just like French theory, which at the time was going global, Slovenian linguism regarded the text as an open, inconclusive, and intertextual structure disseminating meaning across the chains of signifiers. In contradistinction to ludism, which used the play of signifiers to parody the post-romantic tradition and subvert dominant ideologies of the present, the tendency of linguism relinquished socio-political reference. Its self-reflective gaze instead focused on writing and searched for the presumed essence of lyrical discourse. The irony, destruction, carnivalization, provocative 190 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications grotesquery, moral transgression, desperate rage, ugly feelings, and other semiotic traces of repressed drives almost disappeared from the scene of writing in the seventies. The toning down of revolting affects is a symptom of the end of Slovenian modernism and its mutation into postmodernism. The aestheticized seclusion of the literary out of transformative politics entailed what could be termed - following Esposito (45-77) and Campbell (x-xi) - the "immunization of modernism." The immunization reflected socio-political changes in the wake of the apparent defeat of the 1968 revolutionary utopia: the trauma caused by the last repressive convulsion of the communist power led to a lethal crisis of Yugoslav economic and political system that took place in the context of the world-historical defeat of the socialist alternative to capitalist world-system. Even though student movement in Yugoslavia did not intend to overthrow the Communist party, it alarmed the authorities because it demonstrated self-organized and uncontrollable power of multitude (in many cases, workers joined student protests). Moreover, the critical discourse of radical theory and literature exposed the official ideology and called for a reinvention of revolutionary utopia. Pretending to speak in the name of the working class, the nomenklatura had long lost its emancipatory role. Against the background of the adoption of western mass culture, hedonism, and consumerism in the daily life of masses, especially among youngsters, the Party increasingly regarded avant-garde and modernist movements as possible threats to the very fundaments of the post-WWII regime (cf. Gabric: 1139-1143). With their moral transgression, provocative carnivalization of nationalist and socialist icons, anti-realism, and anti-traditionalism, the literary and artistic currents allied to student movement clashed with the Party's cultural ideal of "socialist humanism" and realism. 191 MARKO JUVAN ► Peripheral Modernism and the World-System Communist conservatives and the Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito thus purged the Party of liberals and began to react to modernist intellectuals in a repressive manner. From 1972 onwards, the literary field again suffered from harsher control and restrictions. The conservative faction that seized the power returned to worn-out slogans of "the achievements of the revolution," "the people," "the culture for workers," and promoted Tito's cult of personality. The period that followed the liberal interlude of the sixties (with its ecstatic individualism and progressive modernism) is dubbed the "leaden seventies" (cf. Cepic: 1069-1073, 1117-1125; Gabric: 1125-1127; Vodopivec: 408-421; Troha). To be true, Yugoslav communists did not even try to suppress all modernism, although they forced its immunization. The decorative variant of "socialist modernism" emptied of its provocative subtext was used to represent pseudo-cosmopolitan progressiveness of the state (cf. Suvakovic: 22-26). Moreover, albeit ghettoized in the student press (which took risk to be banned by the Party), counter-culture, ludism along with other neo-modernist trends, neo-avant-garde experimentation, as well as leftist critique of society continued to thrive well into the eighties when they became overdetermined by a new global discourse of human rights, identity politics, and political pluralism. Soon after the global revolt had waned, many French, US-American, or German protagonists of the '68 revolution repented of their leftist radicalism and converted to US-American-sponsored neo-liberalism or the propagation of human rights and multicultural identities as antidotes for so-called totalitarianism. Similarly, faction of Slovenian ex-student rebels came under the spell of east-central European dissidents who, advocating multi-party democracy, freedom of speech and other human rights, sought to demolish the Soviet bloc as well as non-aligned socialist Yugoslavia. In their view, a kind of velvet revolution 192 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications would have to replace the two communist prison houses with the sovereign, liberal nation-states spiritually united under a vague idea of Central Europe. The latter proved to be but a temporary ideological station on the way of the newly founded nation-states to the capitalist world-system. As we know, velvet became soaked with blood, at least in the case of Yugoslav wars. To conclude, around 1968, Slovenia - a peripheral country in a socialist buffer state - succeeded to synchronize with the last season of western modernism by producing a transformative intertext of literature and theory, early modernist traditions and dernier cri Parisian experiments. This process testifies to irregular and accelerated evolution and innovative syncretism that characterize peripheral modernisms. In Slovenian socialist in-between peripherality, the aesthetic transition from late modernism to postmodernism was itself a symptom of the epochal socio-economic and political transformation conditioned by the downfall of the Soviet empire and the co-option of the former Second World to the one and only (late) modernity of the global capitalist empire. $ 193 MARKO JUVAN ► Peripheral Modernism and the World-System Works Cited Anderson, perry, 1984: "Modernity and Revolution." New Left Review I/144: 96-113. bahun, sanja, 2012: "The Balkans Uncovered: Toward Histoire Croisée of Modernism." The Oxford Handbook of Global Modernisms. Ed. by Mark Wollaeger & Matt Eatough. Oxford: Oxford UP. 25-47. Campbell, timothy, 2008: "Bios, Immunity, Life: The Thought of Roberto Esposito." Bios: Biopolitics and Philosophy. By Roberto Esposito. Trans. Timothy Campbell. Minneapolis & London: U of Minnesota P. vii-xlii. Casanova, pascale, 1999: La République mondiale des Lettres. Paris: Seuil. čepič, Zdenko, 2005: "Burno leto 1968. Politična sprostitev. Zaton partijskega liberalizma." Slovenska novejša zgodovina: Od programa Zedinjena Slovenija do mednarodnega priznanja Republike Slovenije 1848-1992. 2. Ed. by Jasna Fischer et al. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. 1054-1066, 1069-1075. CORNIS-POPE, marcel & John NEUBAUER, eds., 2004a: History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe: Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries. 1. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CORNIS-POPE, marcel & John neubauer, 2004b: "General introduction. Introduction to Part I: Literary nodes of political time." History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe: Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries. 1. Ed. by Marcel Cornis-Pope & John Neubauer. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1-18, 33-38. 194 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications CORNIS-POPE, marcel, 2004: "1989: From resistance to reformulation." History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe: Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries. 1. Ed. by Marcel Cornis-Pope & John Neubauer. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 39-51. d'haen, theo, 2013: "Major Histories, Minor Literatures, and World Authors." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 15.5: http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.2342 Doyle, laura & laura WINKIEL, eds., 2005a: Geomodernisms: Race, Modernism, Modernity. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana UP. doyle, laura & laura winkiel, 2005b: "Introduction: The Global Horizons of Modernism." Geomodernisms: Race, Modernism, Modernity. Ed. by Laura Doyle & Laura Winkiel. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana UP. 1-14. Durisin, dionyz, 1992: Co je svetová literatura? Bratislava: Vydavatel'stvo Obzor. ESPOSITO, Roberto, 2008: Bios: Biopolitics and Philosophy. Trans. Timothy Cambell. Minneapolis & London: U of Minnesota P. eysteinsson, astradur & vivían LISKA, eds., 2007a: Modernism. 1. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. eysteinsson, astradur & vivían LISKA, 2007b: "Introduction: Approaching Modernism." Modernism. 1. Ed. by Astradur Eysteinsson & Vivian Liska. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Friedman, susan Stanford, 2007: "Cultural Parataxis and Transnational Landscapes of Reading." Modernism. 1. Ed. by Astradur Eysteinsson & Vivian Liska. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 34-52. 195 MARKO JUVAN ► Peripheral Modernism and the World-System friedman, susan Stanford, 2008: "One Hand Clapping: Colonialism, Postcolonialism, and the Spatio/Temporal Boundaries of Modernism." Translocal Modernisms: International Perspectives. Ed. by Irene Ramalho Santos& António Sousa Ribeiro. Bern etc.: Peter Lang. 11-40. friedman, susan Stanford, 2015: Planetary Modernisms: Provocations on Modernity across Time. New York: Columbia UP. FRIEDRICH, Hugo, 1974: The Structure of Modern Poetry: From the Mid-Nineteenth to the Mid-Twentieth Century. Evanston: Northwestern UP. gabrič, aleš, 2005: "Intelektualci kot opozicija. Približevanje kulturnih dobrin širšemu krogu ljudi. Obračun s kulturniško opozicijo. Sproščena šestdeseta leta v kulturi. Intelektualci v primežu 'svinčenih let'. Med modernizmom in postmodernizmom. Popularna kultura." Slovenska novejša zgodovina: Od programa Zedinjena Slovenija do mednarodnega priznanja Republike Slovenije 1848-1992. 2. Ed. by Jasna Fischer et al. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. 1024-1035, 1056-1069, 1125-1127, 1139-1143. giddens, Anthony, 1990: The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity P. goldwyn, adam j. & renée m. Silverman, eds., 2016a: Mediterranean Modernism: Intercultural Exchange and Aesthetic Development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. GOLDWYN, ADAM J. & RENÉE M. SILVERMAN, 2016b: "Introduction: Fernand Braudel and the Invention of a Modernist's Mediterranean." Mediterranean Modernism: Intercultural Exchange and Aesthetic Development. Ed. by Adam J. Goldwyn & Renée M. Silverman. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 1-26. 196 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications jameson, FREDRic, 2002: A Singular Modernity: Essay on the Ontology of the Present. London & New York: Verso. juvan, marko, 2000: Vezi besedila: Študije o slovenski književnosti in medbesedilnosti. Ljubljana: LUD Literatura. juvan, marko, 2005: "Srečko Kosovel and the Hybridity of Modernism." Primerjalna književnost 28.Special issue: 189-204. KLASic, HRVOJE, 2015: Jugoslavija in svet leta 1968. Transi. Višnja Fičor and Seta Knop. Ljubljana: Beletrina. kos, Janko, 1995: Na poti v postmoderno. Ljubljana: LUD Literatura. MORETTi, franco, 2000: "Conjectures on World Literature." New Left Review 1: 54-68. MORETTi, franco, 2005: Signs Taken for Wonders: On the Sociology of Literary Forms. Second edn. London & New York: Verso. NEUBAUER, JOHN & MARCEL CORNIS-POPE, 2004: "1956/1968: Revolt, Suppression, and Liberalization in Post-Stalinist East-Central Europe." History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe: Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries. 1. Ed. by Marcel Cornis-Pope & John Neubauer. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 82-105. Neubauer, John, 2004: "Introduction: Histories of Literary Form." History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe: Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries. 1. Ed. by Marcel Cornis-Pope & John Neubauer. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 321-323. RAMALHO SANTOS, IRENE & ANTONIO SOUSA RIBEIRO, eds., 2008a: Translocal Modernisms: International Perspectives. Bern etc.: Peter Lang. 197 MARKO JUVAN ► Peripheral Modernism and the World-System RAMALHO SANTOS, IRENE & ANTONIO SOUSA RIBEIRO, 2008b: "Introduction." Translocal Modernisms: International Perspectives. Ed. by Irene Ramalho Santos & Antonio Sousa Ribeiro. Bern etc.: Peter Lang. 1-8. škulj, jola, 1991: "Paul de Man in pojem modernizem." Primerjalna književnost 14.2: 41-49. Škulj, jola, 2009: "Moderna in modernizem." Primerjalna književnost 32.1: 89-106. šuvakovic, miško, 2001: Anatomija angelov: Razprave o umetnosti in teoriji v Sloveniji po letu 1960. Ljubljana: ZPS. totosy de zepetnek, steven, 2002: "Comparative Cultural Studies and the Study of Central European Culture." Comparative Central European Culture. Ed by Steven Totosy de Zepetnek. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue UP. 1-32. troha, gašper, ed., 2008: Literarni modernizem v svinčenih letih. Ljubljana: Študentska založba & Slovenska matica. vodopivec, peter, 2006: Od Pohlinove slovnice do samostojne države: Slovenska zgodovina od konca 18. stoletja do konca 20. stoletja. Ljubljana: Modrijan. wollaeger, mark & matt eatough, eds., 2012: The Oxford Handbook of Global Modernisms. Oxford: Oxford UP. wollaeger, mark, 2012: "Introduction." The Oxford Handbook of Global Modernisms. Ed. by Mark Wollaeger & Matt Eatough. Oxford: Oxford UP. 3-22. 198 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications MarkoJuvan Marko Juvan is Head of the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies and Professor of Literary Theory at the University of Ljubljana. His recent publications on genre theory, intertextuality, literary geography, Slovenian Romanticism, and world literature include History and Poetics of Intertextuality, Literary Studies in Reconstruction, Prešernovska struktura in svetovni literarni sistem and Hibridni žanri. His Worlding a Peripheral Literature is forthcoming. 199 DOI - 10.13137/2283-5482/28132 From Narrative Parallelism to Prosaic Metaphor (The Problem of Counterpart in the Short Story)1 ot happathbhoro napa^e^h3ma k £3mkoboh meta^ope np03m (npoô^ema gyô^hkata b hobe^^e) $ gabor kovâcs - kovacsgabeszi@gmail.com SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications Metaphor is not a literary specificity. Metaphoric utterance (or meaning) is a common aspect of any usage of language. But the production of ambiguity reveals very special processes in literature. As (among many others) Roman Jakobson has emphasized ambiguity in verse language is created by "vocalic, grammatical, and semantic counterparts" (Jakobson: Yeats' "Sorrow of Love" through the Years). Does literary narration and prose language also have specific and unique processes of producing ambiguity? Bakhtin has already elaborated an effective theory of the image in artistic prose on the basis of his well-known concept of polyphony, heteroglossia, and dialogism. In my essay I would like to propose another concept of ambiguity in narrative prose. In prose language narrative discourse and descriptive discourse always interweave. The first one usually refers to a person, the second one is about (material or immaterial) objects. Interweaving discourses attribute a story to the object. In artistic prose the story of the object becomes the narrative counterpart of the story of a person. And in the world of literary text such a narrative parallelism leads to a semantic parallelism - a very special type of ambiguity in prose language. DESCRIPTION, PROSAIC METAPHOR, NARRATIVE PARALLELISM, SEMANTIC COUNTERPART MeTa<}>opa u noauceMUHHocTt He BcTpe-HaMTca ToatKo b auTepaType, ohm xapaKTepHBi flaa peneBoro noBege-Hua Boo6m;e, oflHaKo ux o6pa3oBaHue b auTepaType CBa3aHo c npuMeHeHueM c^e^u<}>uHecKMx npueMoB. B cBoe BpeMa PoMaH sko6coh (b tom Hucae) yme BBiaBun, hto noauceMUHHocrt ctmxot-BopHoro TeKCTa onpegeaaeT «3ByKoBaa, rpaMMaTunecKaa u ceMaHTunecKaa ^KBUBaaeHTH0CTt» [counterpart]. 06aa-flaKT au auTepaTypHoe noBecTBoBaHue u npo3aunecKaa ^pe3eHTa^ua BBicKa-3HBaHua c^e^u^uHecKUMu npueMaMu nopo^fleHua noauceMuu? Muxaua BaxTUH pa3pa6oTaa Teopuw ^urypa-tmbhbix o6pa3oBaHUM b npo3e, TeCHo CBa3aHHHx c noau^oHueM, reTeporeH-HocTtw u fluaaoruHHocTtw BBicKa-3HBaHua. 3gect a mrrawct em;e pa3 nofloMTu k Teopuu noauceMUHHocTu noBecTBoBaTeatHoM npo3Bi c HecKoatKo mhom tohkm 3peHua. B a3BiKoBoM npe-3erc^uu npo3H noBecTBoBaTeatHBiM gucKypc Bcerga HaxoguTca b TecHoM B3auMofleMcTBuu c onucaTeatHHM. nepBHM, KaK npaBuao, opueHTupoBaH Ha nepcoHarn, BTopoM Ha (MaTepuaat-Hyw uau HeMaTepuaatHyw) Bem;t uau geTaat. B3auMofleMcTBue ^TMx guc-KypcoB npeBpa^aeT onucaHue Bem;eM b HappaTMBHBiM fly6auKaT [counterpart] ucTopuu nepcoHarneM u HappaTMBHBiM napanaeau3M nepepacTaeT b ceMaHTu-necKMM napanaeau3M. onhcahhe, meta®opa np03ameck0r0 h3hka, happathbhbih napa.me.flh3m, cemahtmeckhh flyb-ahkat 1 The essay was supported by the Janos Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. 201 GÂBOR KOVÀCS - From Narrative Parallelism to Prosaic Metaphor The similarities and the differences of literary counterpart-theory and philosophical counterpart-theory will be the problem of an other essay (see Lewis 1986). Il discorso si fa secondo me molto piú interessante, se invece di andare alla ricerca del codice che soggiace alla metafora, ci si chiede che tipo di codice »apra« la metafora, ovvero quali informazioni additive ci da la metafora per capire il discorso nel quale essa e inserita e, di conseguenza, chi e il soggetto del discorso e chi il suo destinatario. Insomma, invece di un percorso che va dallenciclopedia alla metafora, proviamo a percorrere la via opposta che va dalla metafora allenciclo-pedia (Verč 2016:306). In my essay I would like to focus attention on the common problem of narration, prose language, and metaphor. I presume that prose language does have a very special process of creating metaphorical meaning. Metaphor in prose language leads us far beyond the general problem of metaphorical utterances as it has a unique concern in the devices of emplotment and narrative discourse. The production of metaphorical meaning in prose works has two main aspects. The first is a structural one: when prosaic metaphor and the phenomenon of narrative parallelism in emplotment coincide. The second aspect is a semantic one: when prosaic metaphor and narrative parallelism result in a special semantic parallelism. This is what I would call the production of counterpart in which the "hero", the agent or the subject acquires a special kind of alter ego in objects.2 Prosaic metaphor, narrative parallelism, and the production of counterpart work together in order to create an internal interpretation of the plot in a short story. The whole problem arises from the function of objects and descriptive discourse in prose language. In the classical narratologies of the 1960's description was considered to be a "subordinate aid to narrative text segments" (Bal 1981-1982: 101). In the paradigm of narra-tology it was Mieke Bal who pointed out with the assistance of Van 202 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications Buuren's modell that description works as a metaphor in novels. De- 3 See also Bal 2004. scriptive paragraphs have special and unique connections with all those narrative sentences that represent agents in action. And these connections are not structural but semantic ones as the description of a landscape, a town, a room, an object or clothes becomes a metaphorical interpretation of the agent. Moreover by means of the analysis of the novel Mme Bovary Mieke Bal managed to demonstrate that "metaphoric contiguity" (129) between descriptive and narrative paragraphs can even be spread out to an entire novel: the successive descriptions of the city of Rouen spread a net all over the novel which results in a metaphorical interpretation of the main character and her narrated story. As Mieke Bal writes: "because the comparé of this metaphor includes the entire fabula of the novel, the description may also be regarded as a mise an abyme, a mirror-text" (130). Now I would like to add some methodological comments to this metaphorical concept of description.3 The comments are derived from a slightly different method of reading literary texts. This method is concerned with poetic language. I read literary text as a consistent poetic discourse. In literary text every component of the linguistic material is subordinated to a dominant element or a constructive principle. It is poetic language that deforms and uniforms all the other usages of language in a novel or short story. From this point of view I would like to emphasize that the separation of description from narration is only a result of a rhetorical and theoretical distinction. It is very useful to make distinctions between the words characters live by, the words used by the narrative devices of emplotment, and the world-making words, because this is the only method that enables us to separate subjects, acts, and objects logically. And of course interpretation may make use of the recognition of the obvious differences between 203 GÂBOR KOVÀCS - From Narrative Parallelism to Prosaic Metaphor The production of counterpart in literary prose work rebuilds the initial unity of man and object. The nascent object is an extension of man; objects (as extensions of man) are media, and "all media are active metaphors in their power to translate experience into new forms" (McLuhan 1964: 57). This is the very short antropological essence of the literary theory of counterpart. the language of a character, the phrasing of narrative discourse, and the sentence production of descriptive discourse. But we must not forget: first of all it is the prose language of a novel or a short story that we read. It is not the words of a character, it is not the narrative discourse, it is not a description that we read. It is only the book that we are confronted with. And because of the very special devices of poetic language a book, a work, a novel, or a short story acquires a unique, individual, and consistent discourse or text in spite of the fact that it may contain many languages. This discursive poetic unity of heteroglossia is called the "dialogical character" of prose language by Bakhtin (1981: 259-422), or the "concordant discordance" in the con-figurative act of narrative text by Ricoeur (1990, 52-90). Why is it important to say that first of all there is only prose language? Because what narrative, descriptive and personal discourse may distantiate, prose language links together. In prose language subject, act, and object get involved in a mutual correspondance. Not only the agent has a story, but also the object has one. In a novel or a short story the object is not only the instrument of an action or a focal point of description, but also the protagonist of a story. In prose language the subject, the agent shares the story with the object. The object takes part in the subject's activity, and vice versa, the subject becomes an active part of the object's life. The structural realization of this mutual participation in each others' story is narrative parallelism. What is more, structural equivalence (see: Schmid 1992: 29-71) results in a semantic correspondence in prose language: the name of the agent and the name of the object get involved in a special poetic meaning-transaction or meaning-interaction even without a conrete metaphoric utterance. And in this mutual correspondance, in accordance with the narrative parallelism the object becomes the counterpart of the subject.4 204 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications There are two types of narrative parallelism. The first type is when 5 11111 On the method of mor- at least two different stories take place simultaneously and the verbal phological plot-anal-presentation of the two sequences (the sentences) are interlocking ysis see Propp 1958. like the two tapes of a zipper. In the second type at least two distinguishable stories take place, one after the other and a morphological (sujet) correspondance interweaves the two sequences.5 Both of these two types of narrative parallelism result in a semantic equivalence and develop new possibilities for the production of prosaic metaphors. This way the "hero" or the agent acquires a counterpart. And as a result, the similarities and the dissimilarities of the "hero" and its counterpart produce an internal interpretation of the story within the limits of the literary work. Let me cite E. A. Poe (The Oval Portrait) and Jack London (1993, Finish) short stories in order to demonstrate the role of narrative parallelism and the production of counterpart in prose language. NARRATIVE PARALLELISM IN POE'S SHORT STORY In Poe's poetics, short stories are based upon the principle of the unity of effect: A skillful literary artist has constructed a tale. If wise, he has not fashioned his thoughts to accommodate his incidents; but having conceived, with deliberate care, a certain unique or single effect to be wrought out, he then invents such incidents; he then combines such events as may best aid him in establishing this preconceived effect. If his very initial sentence tends not to the out-bringing of this effect, then he has failed in his first step. In the whole composition there should be no word written, of which the tendency, direct or indirect, is not to the one 205 GÂBOR KOVÀCS - From Narrative Parallelism to Prosaic Metaphor pre-established design. And by such means, with such care and skill, a picture is at length painted which leaves in the mind of him who contemplates it with a kindred art, a sense of the fullest satisfaction The idea of the tale has been presented unblemished, because undisturbed; and this is an end unattainable by the novel. Undue brevity is just as exceptionable here as in the poem; but undue length is yet more to be avoided (Poe 1975:568-588). Thus, it's not the narrative act with which a short story starts. A literary work will become a whole and genuine unity only if all of its poetic devices are extended from a certain fundamental element, in Poe's terminology it is the "effect" which has already been found and preconceived. And there is only one heuristic element to be extended by verbal articulation. The extension of the unifier component is achieved by the selection of matching events and words, by the combination of events into plots and words into sentences, and by the narrative configuration of plots and sentences. And there is not even a thought before the discovery and the extension of the fundamental element - the poetic wisdom (Poe says: "picture") doesn't precede the text, it is the result of the extension of the preconceived semantic effect achieved by poetic devices. The purport of this brief summery of Poe's poetics is that there is an equivalence between the minimal fundamental element and the whole literary work. In a short story all the literary devices of narrative discourse have only one aim: to work out this equivalence of the minimal component and the whole text. Discursive poetics conceives this specific correlation as the semantic equivalence of poetic word and poetic work. In this regard, Ricoeur asks, "Can we treat metaphor as a work in miniature? [...] Can a work, say a poem, be considered as a sustained or extended metaphor?" (1981: 167). The twofold question 206 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications contains the answer: every literary work presupposes the unbreakable unity of the creating act of a word's poetic semantics (metaphor) and the constituting act of the literary text-world. It's not difficult to find the special "effect" which takes place at the center of The Oval Portait and determines all the literary devices of narrative discourse. At the end of the text there are two sentences: the narrator says "'This is indeed Life itself!' and turns suddenly to regard his beloved: - She was dead!". The dominant effect of the text arises from delirious eyesight, which confuses the attributes of life and death. The dizzy vision that abolishes the boundaries of fancy and reality is established in the initial sentence: "The chateau into which my valet had ventured to make forcible entrance, rather than permit me, in my desperately wounded condition, to pass a night in the open air, was one of those piles of commingled gloom and grandeur which have so long frowned among the Apennines, not less in fact than in the fancy of Mrs. Radcliffe". But the confusion of reality and fancy, existent and absent, life and death produces an effect that cannot mediate itself. This dominant effect is only a result of the special semantic order of words; the short story as a verbal design may produce artistic effect only through the mediation of the semantics of poetic language (see Beardsley 1981: 114-164). The effect is a semantic effect in a literary work. Thus, the dominant effect of the work arises from the semantics of a special verbal expression which becomes dominant in the order of the poetic text. And just as in the dominant effect, so the literary devices of the narrative discourse can be reduced to this expression. The special characteristic of The Oval Portrait is that it connects two scenes and configures two plots into one narrative. The two plots reflect each other. The personal narration of the first scene is about 207 GÂBOR KOVÀCS - From Narrative Parallelism to Prosaic Metaphor a man who analyses himself in his delirium: he contemplates on how the reception of a portrait can be so strange in delirium. The second scene narrates the production of the oval portrait with the words of a book which is read by the main character of the first scene. Thus, The Oval Portrait is a literary work that narrates the birth and the reception of a work of art. The effect that arises from the confusion of the attributes of life and death becomes dominant in the frame of a narration that presents the production and the reception of a portrait. The Oval Portrait, as a twofold narrative has another specific discursive aspect. And this aspect is characterized much more by prose language than narrative devices. There is a twofold plot that is not only the result of narrative discourse but also of the metaphorical processes of prose language. Not only the duality of the production and the reception of the portrait becomes important. The twofold plot is placed into the frame of a spatial context which is presented by the descriptive and detailing devices of prose language. The description of the space is empowered by the metaphorical processes of prose language to create a plot. A multiple repetition puts an emphasize on a single detail and converts it into a dominant element. Than prose language introduces the dominant detail as the main character of a special plot. The dominant detail is the light-ray; and the movement of the light-ray results in a complex plot. The story of the light-ray runs parallel with the story of painting and contemplation. The narrative structure builds up a strict system in which every paragraph or sentence that narrates the story of the portrait is followed by a sentence that describes the status of the candle light. Eventually the synchronization of the two plots results in a narrative parallelism that interprets the act of painting and the act of reception 208 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications through the metaphor of light-ray and the narration of the movement of light-ray. Let's follow the narrative parallelism and the subsequent semantic parallelism! The reception of the portrait has an unbreakable relation with the changes of light. In the dark château the objects can be seen only if the light-ray focuses on them; and this function of light-ray is introduced in the very beginning of the short story: In these paintings, which depended from the walls not only in their main surfaces, but in very many nooks which the bizarre architecture of the chateau rendered necessary - in these paintings my incipient delirium, perhaps, had caused me to take deep interest; so that I bade Pedro to close the heavy shutters of the room - since it was already night, - to light the tongues of a tall candelabrum which stood by the head of my bed, and to throw open far and wide the fringed curtain of black velvet which enveloped the bed itself. I wished all this done that I might resign myself, if not to sleep, at least alternately to the contemplation of these pictures, and the perusal of a small volume which had been found upon the pillow, and which purported to criticise and describe them. The correlation of eyesight, light and contemplation becomes so close that the movement of light-ray begins to displace sight and reception: The position of the candelabrum displeased me, and outreaching my head with difficulty, rather than disturb my slumbering valet, I placed it so as to throw its rays more fully upon the book. But the action produced an effect altogether unanticipated. The rays of the numerous candles (for there were many) now fell within a niche 209 GÂBOR KOVÀCS - From Narrative Parallelism to Prosaic Metaphor of the room which had hitherto been thrown into deep shade by one of the bedposts. I thus saw in vivid light a picture all unnoticed before. It was the portrait of a young girl just ripening into womanhood. Only the rays of the candles are able to awaken eyesight and make possible reading and watching. These light-rays are filled with life. The "vivid light" is one of the main expressions of the short story as the portrait is able to come alive only if there is the vivid (vivere) metaphoric attribute beside the word light: "My fancy, shaken from its half slumber, had mistaken the head for that of a living person". Due to the metaphorical process, light (not surprisingly) transforms into the symbol of life. In this text-world only those objects are able to come alive that are lightened by the rays of the candles; all the others in the shadow are dead and are waiting to awaken: "the flashing of the candles upon that canvas had seemed to dissipate the dreamy stupor which was stealing over my senses, and to startle me at once into waking life". That is the reason why the reception of the portrait cannot be finished until a new movement of the light-ray occurs: "With deep and reverent awe I replaced the candelabrum in its former position". The movement of the light-ray indicates the beginning and the end of reception; actually it is the light that transfers the portrait into the sphere of life. The story of the reception can be related to the story of the movement of the light-ray only if the work of art is also connected to the relation of the act of painting and the movement of light. The second scene of the short story is a compact fiction which is based upon the correlation of vivid light and life. The metaphorical processes of prose language connects the movement of the light-ray and the act of painting in order to realize the confusion of the attributes of life and death. In this text-world the act of painting is not just an activity that applies colors to the canvas; it has a special correlation with the movement 210 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications of the light-ray. The death of the lady is related to the lack of light: she "sat meekly for many weeks in the dark, high turret-chamber where the light dripped upon the pale canvas only from overhead". The met-aphoric devices of prose language connect the lady's agony explicitly to the changes of light: "the light which fell so ghastly in that lone turret withered the health and the spirits of his bride". Finally, the text identifies life with light and the act of painting with the movement of light: ... the tints which he spread upon the canvas were drawn from the cheeks of her who sat beside him. And when many weeks had passed, and but little remained to do, save one brush upon the mouth and one tint upon the eye, the spirit of the lady again flickered up as the flame within the socket of the lamp. And then the brush was given, and the tint was placed. The metaphorical process of prose language introduces the act of painting as the confusion of the attributes of life and death. The act of painting applies the vivid light of the lady's face ("she a maiden of rarest beauty, and not more lovely than full of glee; all light and smiles") onto the canvas - consequently the lady dies and the portrait comes alive. In this text-world, art is nothing else than the elimination of "reality" and the resurrection of the work of art in one act. Art is the ultimate way of confusing the attributes of life and death. The light-ray has a successful career in the short story. First, light appears as a partial detail of the circumstances and the context of action. But the multiple repetitions introduce the rays of the candles as a motif. The metaphoric devices enrich the light-motif with special semantic fields. Due to this semantic innovation light transforms into an anthropomorphic character. Then narrative discourse connects the 211 GÂBOR KOVÀCS - From Narrative Parallelism to Prosaic Metaphor story of the light-ray to the story of painting and creates a narrative parallelism in which the act of painting is interpreted through the metaphor of light. Finally, the narrative parallelism introduces light as the counterpart of art that creates a new reality and a new vision of life. That's how the complex semantic correlation works in the poetic discursive order of this literary work. There is no dominant effect to be mediated without the various ways of semantic innovation; the existence of the effect that arises from the confusion of the attributes of life and death depends on the poetic semantic innovation. Although we have analyzed several levels of the text so far, there is still a problem we have not solved. We haven't pointed out exactly the minimal fundamental element that vitalizes the fiction of the whole short story. Where does that heuristic fiction come from which offers the possibility of narrative parallelism? There is a unique expression in the text. In English there is a special word to name the act of painting a portrait: this the verb is portray. The short story invokes this word in one of the sentences: "It was thus a terrible thing for this lady to hear the painter speak of his desire to portray even his young bride". The verb portray is the most important word-subject of the text. The poetic etymology of the word extends into the plot. Poetic semantics divides the word in two parts: port + ray. The meaning of the word ray is realized in the text by the expressions "the rays of the numerous candles" and "the flame within the socket of the lamp". The word port invokes the Latin verb portare which is represented in English by the word portable - it means 'to bring, to make move'. Poetic etymology invents a special metaphorical semantics inside the word, which is covered by its literal sense. Thus, the word portray means two things in this text: it means 'to paint a portrait' and 'to move the light-ray'. The fiction of the short story realizes these two 212 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications semantic aspects at one and the same time: the text introduces the act of painting as the movement of the light-ray. Actually the heuristic fiction that organizes the mechanism of the whole text is concentrated in only one word: portray. On the basis of the semantic construction of The Oval Portrait a three-dimensional concept of short story can be worked out: The three-dimensional model has two longitudinal or horizontal axes and one lateral or vertical axis. The two longitudinal axes consist of the two main plots of the short story. Every short story tells at least two stories. One of them is placed in the foreground, the other is pushed into the background. The former is always about human actions. The 213 GÂBOR KOVÀCS - From Narrative Parallelism to Prosaic Metaphor latter creates a story about a detail, about an object that seems to be unimportant. At the end of the short story, the two discordant plots are suddenly integrated into a unity. And this unanticipated text event rehabilitates the significance of the back plot. That's how such a narrative parallelism is constituted, in which the story of a man is metaphorically interpreted by the story of a detail. But the two plots that merge into one at the end of the short story have already been rooted to the very same field from the beginning of the text. And this field is not a narrative but a textual and semantic one. The common root is a metaphor created by prose language: the two plots have already been connected to each other by a metaphoric expression long before the development of the narrative. It is the metaphor that rules poetic narrative discourse and provides the concordance of narrative parallelism; and the conclusion at the end of the story always points back to this metaphoric origin of the text. The lateral or vertical axis of the model of short story, which demonsrates the horizon of language, leads us through the metaphorical process of the text: it starts with the internal metaphor of the word (port+ray) and leads through narrative parallelism and the special poetic narrative discourse to the whole poetic text. The text-world of the short story originates and arises from the heuristic fiction of a metaphor; each and every process of narrative discourse points back to this metaphor. It is the metaphorical semantic correlation of word and text that provides for the wholeness, totality, reducibility and economy of short story. In the case of the short story entitled The Oval Portrait the first type of narrative parallelism occurs. The story of a portrait, and the story of candle light (as an immaterial object) take place simultaneously; the verbal presentation of the two sequences (the sentences) are interlocking like the two tapes of a zipper, in the meanwhile the immaterial 214 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications object (light-ray) becomes a counterpart of the artistic creating act (the painting and the reception of the portrait). In Jack London's short story the second type of narrative parallelism occurs. THE problem of CouNTERpART IN JACK london's short story In the short story entitled Finis or Margansons Finis there are two narrative sequences that take place in rapid succession. The emplotment repeats the same series of events twice. Morganson is a border reaver. The narrator does not introduce the main character's life. We only get to know one thing about his life: "In all his life he had never pampered his stomach". The stomach illuminates Morganson's life. So the reader is thrown into the middle of the events, into Morganson's tortures, the tortures of his stomach. He is struggling against his own body in the middle of nowhere, in the frosty very far north. He is ill and has no food. Morganson eats the last of his bacon and tries to find an emergency exit from his situation. He walks into a bar in a little village called Minto in order to find alternative solutions. The barkeeper offers him a glass of whiskey. The main character drinks the whiskey and leaves the bar. He has made a decision: he would like to solve his situation by a robbery with murder. Morganson returns to the snowy trail, builds an invisible hiding place on a hillside near to the main trail that leads to the south, and begins to wait for a victim, for a "sled loaded with life", a sled loaded with his own life. He is waiting for a victim for more than two months. But the trail is desolate, and usually he is just trying to recover his strength in his tent when a traveler comes, so he always misses the mark. After two months 215 GÂBOR KOVÀCS - From Narrative Parallelism to Prosaic Metaphor an unexpected solution presents itself. He manages to kill a moose. This opportunity opens up a new prospect to him, as the moose meat costs a lot; and the meat for his body and the money for the travel to south means survival. But it is a difficult task to carry the huge carcass to the tent. So Morganson scaffolds a wooden frame, and hangs the moose up on it. He spends his night with a huge dinner. But next morning he wakes up to a horrible noise. When he steps out his tent he sees wolves devouring the body of the moose. So finally he loses his prey and his chance to survive. He has to resume his struggle for existence. And the story restarts here. The emplotment of the second half of Morganson's story repeats the morphological order of the first half of the story very strictly. There is a second last meal, a second departure, a second returning to the trail and going into hiding, a second waiting for survival, a second hunting, and a second failure or defeat. first sequence of events 1. Meal - the last bacon 2. Departure - journey to Minto (bar, whiskey) 3. Back to the trail, going into hiding 4. Waiting for the "sled loaded with life" (2 months) 5. Hunting - the moose 6. Failure - the loss of the prey (because of wolves) second sequence of events 7. Meal - the last moose soup 8. Departure - journey to Minto (bar, whiskey) 9. Back to the trail, going into hiding 10. Waiting for the gold miners (1 night) 11. Hunting - the gold miners 12. Defeat - the loss of the prey (because of sled dogs) So, wolves destroy Morgenson's plans for survival by devouring the body of the moose. He also eats the last portion of his moose soup. So he has to make new plans for survival. In terrible conditions he returns to the bar in Minto in order to find alternative solutions. The 216 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications barkeeper offers him a glass of whiskey again. In the bar Morganson overhears a dialogue of a group of rich gold miners about their homeward journey to the south. He makes a new decision: he is planing to murder and rub the gold miners while they are passing by his tent. So Morganson returns again to the snowy trail as fast as his tortured body can move. He sleeps for a few hours, and wakes up early in the morning. He cocks his rifle and aims his gun at the trail. Morganson doesn't have to wait for hours, as the gold miners arrive soon with their sleds and dogs and money. And Morganson seems to have a success: he manages to finish the gold miners. But the only problem is that he has run out of cartridge, and the sled dogs are still alive. He manages to find a possible solution for his difficult situation, but again, he can not make a use of it. He can't get close to the sleds, the dogs are stopping him. And what is more, the leader dog sinks its teeth into the calf of his leg. Morganson has no more idea. He is bleeding and he is beginning to break up. And finally he gives up. He failed, he suffered a defeat. Morganson falls down into the snow and soon he falls asleep. These are his last thoughts: Now that he was down, Morganson was no longer afraid. He had a vision of himself being found dead in the snow, and for a while he wept in self-pity. But he was not afraid. The struggle had gone out of him. When he tried to open his eyes he found that the wet tears had frozen them shut. He did not try to brush the ice away. It did not matter. He had not dreamed death was so easy. He was even angry that he had struggled and suffered through so many weary weeks. He had been bullied and cheated by the fear of death. Death did not hurt. Every torment he had endured had been a torment of life. Life had defamed death. It was a cruel thing. 217 GÀBOR KOVÀCS ► From Narrative Parallelism to Prosaic Metaphor 6 Both of them mean 'life'. See: "a sled loaded with life"; "he was glad that the sled had not passed before the coming of the moose. The moose had changed his plans. Its meat was worth fifty cents a pound, and he was but little more than three miles from Min-to. He need no longer wait for the sled-load of life. The moose was the sled-load of life. He would sell it. He would buy a couple of dogs at Minto, some food and some tobacco, and the dogs would haul him south along the trail to the sea, the sun, and civilisation"; "a tall, broad-shouldered, black-whiskered man was paying for drinks. Morgan-son's swimming eyes saw him drawing a greenback from a fat roll, and Morgan-son's swimming eyes cleared on the instant. They were hundred-dollar bills. It was life! His life!". Both of them mean 'death', as both have tooth, both can bite, and both deprive Morganson of the prey. See: "the big leader [dog], with a savage lunge, sank its teeth into the calf of his leg"; "the frost began to bite in", "the cold bit in more savagely", "the bite of the frost", "the frost sank its teeth deep into him". The morphological structure of the plot emphasizes two basic artistic features of the short story. On the one hand it accentuates the special tragic aspect of the fin-de-siecle's short story. The same character just can not carry out the same action with two different outcomes. If the character fails at the first try, he or she has to fail again at the second one too (Cmmphob 1987: 113). On the other hand narrative parallelism emphasizes some functional equivalence. The sled, the moose, and the gold miners have the same function in the plot: all of them are potential preys and as potential preys they could be the solution of the main character's difficult situation.6 The wolves and the dogs (and the frost) also have a common function: both of them deprive the main character of the chance of survival.7 But the repeated failure and the functional equivalences together result in a special contradictory semantic equivalence. The dissimilars are beginning to be similar.8 And the problem of counterpart emerges here. According to the semantic processes of narrative parallelism the different presences of the wolf become counterparts of the main character. On the level of emplotment there is a functional equivalence between the sled, the moose and the gold miners (on the one hand), or the wolves, the dogs and the frost (on the other hand). But on the level of text there is a semantic contiguity between the main character and the wolves or dogs. And this is the point where prose language puts itself into operation. At the very beginning of the short story there is an interesting sentence. When Morganson decides to solve his problems with a robbery with murder "his face becomes stern and wolfish". So, Morganson is wolfish. And, of course, wolfish animals deprive him of the chances of survival. But we should never doubt for a moment that in fact it is only Morganson who can be blamed for his own defeat. So wolves are Morganson's counterparts and the projections or extensions of his own sternness. This is what we call the metaphorical reference of prose 218 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications text. Prose language produces a very special semantic contiguity in the short story in accordance with narrative parallelism: enemies get united, dissimilars become similars. And when the object or the natural fact becomes the main character's counterpart, an internal interpretation of the story emerges within the limits of the short story's text. *** When the problem of prose language is to be taken into consideration somehow dissimilarity always slips into the center of interest. As a special kind of emplotment, prose work always produces concordance in discordant - as Ricoeur writes. As a special kind of heteroglossia prose work always forces individual world views and discourses into dialogue - as Bakhtin writes. The problem of counterpart has the same significance in a novel or a short story. In prose language narrative parallelism co-ordinates the dissimilars by equalizing two inconsistent actions. And by the way the two different "heroes" of the two different events become each other's counterparts. This literary process reorganizes the entire text as a poetical work. The process derives from a special metaphorical utterance (in Poe's short story the internal metaphor of word "portray"; in Jack London's short story the metaphorical utterance "his face become stern wolfish"). The emplotment produces two divergent, nevertheless concordant (parallel) plot sequences on the basis of the metaphorical utterance (the story of a portrait on the one hand, and the story of candle light on the other hand; the story of Morganson on the one hand, and the story of wolves on the other hand). And finally narrative parallelism results in a semantic innovation, that is to say a metaphorical reference, a literary text, a fiction, a poetical world in/ from which the interpretative energy of counterparts emerges. V 1 "The dissimilarity requires a similarity in order to transmit 'its own', to create its own distinct system. [...] A changed feature in the the similar can change the entire system by its dissimilarity. Therefore, the dissimilarity of the similar is economical in its own way, because it uses the system as part of its new message without destroying the entire system. Tropes - uncommon applications of the word - don't destroy the quotidian, conventional meaning of the word-sign, but represent a new (found in the ordinary) consciousness of the dissimilarity of the similar" (Shklovsky 2011: 57). 219 GÂBOR KOVÀCS - From Narrative Parallelism to Prosaic Metaphor Bibliography bakhtin, m. m., 1981: The Dialogic Immagination. Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Edited by M. Holoquist. University of Texas Press. bal, mieke, 1981-1982: On Meanings and Descriptions. Studies in 20th Century Literature (special issue The Semiotics of Literary Signification) 6/1-2. 100-148. bal, mieke, 2004: Over-Writing as Un-writing: Descriptions, World-Making, and Novelistic Time. Narrative Theory: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies. Vol. I. Edited by Mieke Bal. Routledge. 2004. 341-388. beardsley, monroe c., 1981: Aesthetics. Cambridge, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. lewis, david K.,1986: On the Plurality of Worlds. Blackwell. london, jack, 1993: The Complete Short Stories of Jack London. Edited by Earle Labor, Robert C. Leitz, I. Milo Shepard. Stanford University Press. mcluhan, Marshall, 1964: Understanding Media - The Extensions of Man. MIT Press. poe, e. a., 1984: Essays and Reviews. New York: Literary Classics of the U.S. poe, e. a., 1975: The Complete Tales and Poems of Edgar Allan Poe. New York: Vintage Books. propp, v., 1958: The Morphology of the Folk tail. Translated by Laurence Scott. Indiana University Press. ricoeur, paul, 1990: Time and Narrative. Translated by Kathleen McLaughlin and David Pellauer. The University of Chicago Press. ricoeur, paul, 1981: Hermeneutics & the Human Sciences. Edited and translated by John B. Thompson. Cambridge University Press. 220 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications SCHMID, wolf, 1992: Ornamentales Erzählen in der russischen Moderne. Čechov - Babel - Zamjatin. Frankfurt am Main-Berlin-Bern-New York-Paris-Wien: Peter Lang. shklovsky, viktor, 2011: Bowstring: on the Dissimilarity of the Similar. Translated by Shushan Avagyan. Dalkey Archive Press. cmhphob, h. n., 1987: Ha nymu k meopuunumepamypu. Amsterdam. verč, Ivan, 2016: Verifiche. Preverjanja. npoeepxu. Vol. III. EUT - Edizioni dell'Universita di Trieste. 221 GÂBOR KOVÀCS - From Narrative Parallelism to Prosaic Metaphor Pe3MMe MeTa^opa He aBiaeTca c^e^M$MHecKOM eguHu^M iuTepaTypHo-ro npou3BegeHua. MeTa^opunecKoe BBipa^eHue (uiu 3HaneHue) aBieHue peneBoro noBegeHua Boo6m,e. OgHaKo ^pogy^MpoBaHMe ncMceMMHHoro o6pa3oBaHua npoucxoguT b iuTeparype npu noMo-cnenu^uHecKux npueMoB. B CBoe BpeMa PoMaH hko6coh (b tom Hucie) y^e bmsbuj, hto noiuceMuHHocTB ctmxotbophoto TeKcTa onpegeiaeT «3ByKoBaa, rpaMMarunecKaa u ceMaHTMHecKaa ^KBMBa-ieHTHocTB» [counterpart] (Jakobson: Yeats' "Sorrow of Love" through the Years). Bo3HMKaeT Bonpoc: pa3Be iMTepaTypHoe noBecTBoBaHue u npo3aunecKaa npe3eHTan.ua BBicKa3BiBaHua To^e o6iagaroT cnen,-u^uHecKuMu npueMaMu nopo^geHua noiuceMuu? Muxaui EaxTuH pa3pa6oTai He3aypagHyro Teopuro no noBogy ^urypaTuBHBix o6pa-3oBaHuM b xygo^ecTBeHHon npo3e, TecHo cBa3aHHBix c noiu^oHu-eM, reTeporeHHocTBro u guaioruHHocTBro BBicKa3BiBaHua. B gaHHoM cTaTBe a nonwTarocB em,e pa3 nogoMTu k Teopuu noiuceMuHHocru noBecTBoBaTeiBHon npo3w c HecKoiBKo uhom tohku 3peHua. B a3Bi-kobom ^pe3eHTa^MM npo3Bi noBecTBoBareiBHBiM gucKypc Bcerga Ha-xoguTca b TecHoM B3aMMogeMCTBMM c onucaTeiBHBiM gucKypcoM. nepBBiM, KaK npaBuio, opueHTupoBaH Ha iun,o nepcoHa^a, Torga KaK BTopoM Ha (MaTepuaiBHyro uiu HeMaTepuaiBHyro) Bem,B uiu geTaiB. B3auMogeMcTBue yKa3aHHBix gucKypcoB HageiaeT 3rux geTaieM ca-MocToaTeiBHoM ucropueM. B xygo^ecTBeHHoM npo3e ucTopua Bem,eM u geTaieM geMoHcTpupyeT ux MeTaMop$o3y - npeBpam,eHue b Happa-tubhbim gy6iuKaT [counterpart] ucTopuu iuHHocreM. B iuTepaTyp-hom TeKcTe HappaTuBHBiM napaiieiu3M Bcerga nepecym,ecTBiaeTca b ceMaHTunecKuM napaiieiu3M. 222 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications Kovacs Gabor Kovacs Gabor is an associate professor at the University of Pannonia (Department of Literary and Cultural Studies), Veszprem, Hungary. His published works are in the fields of Hungarian literature in the 19th century, Arany Janos's narrative poems (Story Production in Verse Language - 2010), Gardonyi Gezas novels (Word in Emergency - 2011), poetics of prose, the problem of verse language, discursive poetics (Counterpart Theory. Narrative Parallelism in Literary Text - in preparation), Paul Ricoeur's hermeneutics (Hermeneutics of Discourse. Selected Writings of Paul Ricoeur - 2010). 223 Varia DOI - 10.13137/2283-5482/28133 Selbstmarketing, Selbstmanagement, Selbstoptimierung, Self-Branding, Self-Tracking: soggetto autorazionalizzante e mercato del lavoro Self-marketing, Self-management, Self-optimization, Self-branding, Self-tracking: self-rationalizing subject and the labor market $ goranka rocco - grocco@units.it SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications II contributo esamina le tendenze dell'attuale mercato del lavoro con particolare attenzione alla professione del mediatore linguistico. Partendo dal fenomeno inquadrato in letteratura come "soggetto neoliberale" e arrivan-do al concetto piu ampio del "soggetto autorazionalizzante", si osservano le tracce dei rispettivi sviluppi nel linguaggio attuale e le loro ripercussio-ni sul mercato del lavoro per chi lavora sulla e con la lingua, analizzate in base ai sondaggi e contemplate dal punto di vista delle loro implicazioni per la formazione. MEDIATORE LINGÜISTICO; MERCATO DEL lavoro; soggetto neoliberale The paper investigates trends in the current labor market with a focus on the profession of Language mediator, departing from the phenomenon framed in the literature as the "neoliberal subject" and moving toward a more integrative concept of the "self-rationalizing subject". The second chapter traces evidence of the described developments in the current language, as well as their repercussions for language mediators and language experts, which are examined on the basis of the survey results and analyzed with regard to their educational implications. LANGUAGE MEDIATOR; LABOR market; neoliberal subject 227 GORANKA ROCCO ► Soggetto autorazionalizzante e mercato del lavoro "Dans le néolibéralisme - et il ne s'en cache pas, il le proclame -, on va retrouver là une théorie de Ihomo oeco-nomicus, mais l'homo œconomicus, ce n'est pas du tout un partenaire de l'échange, c'est un entrepreneur e un entrepreneur de lui-même" (Foucault 2004: 232). Cfr. Brieler 2013, Dardot/Laval 2009 (so-prattutto il 13. capitolo dedicato a "la fabrique du sujet néolibéral") e 2010, cfr. anche le ri-flessioni nell'ambito delle scienze giuridi-che (Denozza 2018) e della formazione (Conte 2016). Cfr. anche Balint sulla dimensione tecnico-mediale del fenomeno di Entgrenzung (2017: 52-55), Hochschild sul culto di efficienza come stile di vita e atteggiamento generale (2002: 231s.). 1. soggetto autorazionalizzante come oggetto transdisciplinare La riflessione su un homo oeconomicus imprenditore di se stesso, che si gestisce, monitora e razionalizza autónomamente, delineato già nelle considerazioni su biopolitica e gouvernementalité néolibérale di Foucault1, ha ispirato e continua ad ispirare una serie di studi transdiscipli-nari incentrati sul cambio del paradigma nel passaggio tra il fordismo e il postfordismo o su diversi aspetti del cosiddetto neoliberal turn. Nel-la filosofia e (psico)sociologia del lavoro, le osservazioni sul soggetto che dirige, analizza e ottimizza sistematicamente le proprie risorse e la propria employability, autoincitandosi continuamente a superare gli altri nonché se stesso, si addensano nel concetto di "uomo-impresa", "soggetto imprenditoriale" (cfr. Arbeitskraftunternehmen in Voß/Pon-gratz 1998, Pongratz/Voß 2003; homme-entreprise, sujet entrepreneurial in Dardot/Laval 2009) oppure di "soggetto neoliberale" (der neoliberale Charakter, le sujet néolibéral)2. Ad esso si collegano anche ulteriori concetti che riflettono l'estensione del ragionamento economico su tutte le sfere della vita, come ad.es. Entgrenzung der Arbeit e Verbetrieblichung der Lebensführung (ibid.) nella sociologia del lavoro tedesca, nel senso dello sconfinamento del lavoro e dello scioglimento dei margini tra vita lavorativa e privata in un'ottica imprenditoriale totalizzante3. Riassumendo gli elementi ricorrenti nelle riflessioni sul "soggetto neoliberale" all'interno di varie discipline, esso puo essere visto come sintomo di una società interamente incorporata nei meccanismi della sua stessa economia, nel senso del sempre attuale pensiero di Polanyi (1974), o come incarnazione di un'antropologia neoliberale che interpreta le potenzialità umane in termini di "performances actualisables, et non de caractéristiques intangibles" e inquadra l'individuo partendo 228 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications dalle sue competenze, direttamente traducibili in produttivita (Foessel 2010: 117-8, 120). Idealmente, il soggetto in questione ha interiorizzato l'idea che il suo valore si rifletti interamente nella sua capacita di auto-prodursi e autotradursi secondo i modelli richiesti, o meglio nella performance che ne risulta, e percepisce le proprie fragilita o vulnerabilita non tanto come costante dell'esistenza umana (Foessel 2010: 120ss., Ricoeur 2001), quanto come tappe o ostacoli sormontabili nell'autorea-lizzazione. Pertanto, si impegnera non solo ad incrementare il proprio rendimento, concepito in base a strumenti pseudo-oggettivanti come indici di produttivita o di capacita di soddisfare la rispettiva clientela, raramente messi in questione, ma anche ad aumentare la propria resilienza nei confronti delle crescenti insicurezze. Accettera queste ultime come aspetti inevitabili di una vita intesa come un continuo processo di adattamento ai possibili rischi (Evans/Reid 2014: 68, 62), in modo da non appesantire né ora né mai i sistemi ai quali partecipa con le proprie fragilita. Nel suo azionismo e nella sua incapacita di concepire se stesso al di fuori del proprio rendimento, un tale soggetto, meno sovversi-vo di un'oca da foie gras, é l'incoronamento della ricerca industríale del perpetuum mobile e funge da importante pilastro nell'accumu-lazione e nella commodificazione in quanto, agendo nell'interesse del proprio benessere socioeconomico, organizza autonomamente la razionalizzazione e mercificazione di se stesso, o come formula Brieler: "Der neoliberale Charakter meldet seine Dringlichkeit da an, wo die hochtechnologische Produktionsweise einen Menschentypus fordert, der die eigene Verwertung autonom organisiert. Der Kern dieser Subjektivität ist die Selbst-Fixierung als Ware. (...) Der Wettlauf zur Warenförmigkeit ist das erklärte Programm des neoliberalen Charakters" (2013: 20). 229 GORANKA ROCCO ► Soggetto autorazionalizzante e mercato del lavoro 4 La concezione di un tale soggetto come conseguenza o manifesta- zione del neoliberal turn o di un'"antropologia neoliberale" (Foessel 2010: 120) puo sembrare tuttavia alquanto ristretta, in quanto gli svi-luppi in questione non sono senza precedenti o parallelismi in altri sistemi o epoche. In termini di interiorizzazione dell'imperativo della massima performance, risulta riscontrabile anche nei sistemi comune-mente considerati distanti da quelli impregnati della logica "neoliberale" o "neoliberista". Se ci si chiedesse cosa distingue il "soggetto neoliberale" qui delineato dallo stachanovista di stampo sovietico o dalla sua variante jugoslava, sublimata nel leggendario udarnik e Junak socijalistickog rada Alija Sirotanovic riprodotto anche sulla banconota da 20.000 dinari4, che si realizzo superando il record dello stesso Aleksej Stachanov, si trove-rebbe la risposta forse nelle motivazioni o legittimazioni ideologiche alla base dell'aspirazione alla massima performance, ma meno nell'impor-tanza attribuitale dal soggetto e/o dalla societa. Icone come Stachanov o Sirotanovic, o anche i lavoratori-modello pensati dagli ideologi del scientific management come Aleksej Gastev, mostrano tratti in comune con quello che viene definito "soggetto neoliberale", soprattutto nel coinvolgimento e nell'assorbimento volontario e quasi totale del soggetto nell'attivita. Del pari, certi aspetti del soggetto in questione si rispec-chiano nelle figure create dalla cultura popolare statunitense come personificazioni del sistema sovietico: una tale metafora stereotipata, a titolo d'esempio, é il pugile semi-robotizzato sovietico Ivan Drago, avversario di Rocky Balboa in Rocky IV (1985). In quanto oggetto di mo-nitoraggio e ottimizzazione permanente delle proprie funzioni vitali per aumentare la capacita di colpire e incassare colpi, questo (anti?)eroe dell'industria cinematografica é un precursore del self-tracker dei nostri tempi, la cui pretesa di liberta sembra esaurirsi nel seguire ad absur-dum le ricette di autorazionalizzazione e razionalizzazione assistita. 230 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications Un parallelismo con questa caricatura del sistema soviético sembra imporsi anche quando ci si chiede se o quanto lo spazio di manovra e la liberta del "soggetto neoliberale" vada oltre la liberta di costruirsi conformemente alle richieste del mercato. Questa "autonomia con-trollata" del soggetto-impresa, catturato in un dispositivo sempre piu fitto che induce a controllarsi e valutarsi con lo scopo di autogestire gli sforzi per massimizzare la propria performance e superare quella degli altri, secondo Dardot e Laval andrebbe meglio chiamata "eteronomia individualizzata" oppure "costrizione individualizzata" (hétéronomie individualisée, contrainte intériorisée, 2010: 46). Istituendo un paragone tra soggetto "liberale" e "neoliberale", Denozza descrive il primo come "un soggetto comunque 'denso' (...), governatore kantiano dei suoi spazi", il secondo come "un soggetto 'sottile'": "Tutto quello che gli si chiede é di mettere i suoi appetiti in un ordine gerarchico. E un soggetto la cui liberta in sé sembra interessare poco sia il sistema, sia lui medesimo (2018: XXXII)." Piu esplicito ancora, in quanto sottolinea l'incapacita del nuovo soggetto di concepire se stesso e il proprio mondo al di fuori degli imperativi di competizione, é lo sguardo storico di Enzo Traverso (2018): A completely reified world, in which all human and social relationships take a commodity form, in which the market becomes a universal anthropological model and human beings are unable to conceive of their relationships outside of individualism and competition: such a world would be totalitarian. Paradoxically, a new form of neoliberal totalitarianism is coming into being, dressed in anti-totalitarian clothes (market and individualism as symbols of freedom against racial and class collectivism). Come inizialmente sottolineato, l'interesse per i fenomeni collega-ti al "soggetto neoliberale" ovvero "soggetto autorazionalizzante" 231 GORANKA ROCCO ► Soggetto autorazionalizzante e mercato del lavoro I rispettivi appro-fondimenti teorici ed empirici, in par-ticolare per quel che riguarda le prospettive e le condizioni lavo-rative tanto oggettive quanto soggettive dei mediatori ed esperti linguistici, sono stati effettuati nell'ambito del progetto di ricerca "Mercato del lavoro per mediatori linguistici neolaureati: inseri-mento, prospettive, problematiche" (Università degli Studi di Trieste - Finanzia-mento di Ateneo per progetti di ricerca scientifica - FRA 20l6, 1.1.2017 - 31.12.201S). - espressione preferita qui, in quanto tesa a non limitarsi a determinate sistemi o posizioni ideologiche - è comune a varie discipline. Questi fenomeni risultano tuttavia raramente focalizzati negli studi di lin-guaggio sensu lato, ivi inclusi gli approcci più marcatamente interdisciplinary per cui si potrebbero nominare numerosi desiderata che riguardano sia la costruzione discorsiva del soggetto in questione, sia gli approcci alle competenze linguistiche e al linguaggio come strumento e oggetto di comunicazione impregnati del pensiero in questione. Due di questi desiderata saranno qui presi in considerazione: il primo ri-guarda la manifestazione degli sviluppi tracciati nel linguaggio (par. 2), il secondo le ripercussioni sul mercato del lavoro per chi lavora sulla e con la lingua (par. 3)5. Le caratteristiche morfosintattiche e lo status all'interno della formazione di parole o sintagmi dipende della lingua: ad es. per il tedesco, Duden 2015 definisce selbst come particella (Partikel) derivante dal genitivo maschile singolare fossilizzato/ erstarrt di selb- che segue la parola di riferimento. Nelle lingue non germaniche, la produt-tività di questa classe non si limita al modello modificatore + base: ad es. cro. samoupravljanje vs. upravljanje sobom, upravljanje vlastitim zdravljem; fr. autogestion vs. maîtrise de soi. 2. RIFLESSI DEL SOGGETTO AUTORAZIONALIZZANTE NEL LINGUAGGIO Un possibile punto di partenza per analizzare le tracce del soggetto autorazionalizzante nel linguaggio puo essere rappresentato, foca-lizzando il discorso sul mercato del lavoro, da una classe sempre più diffusa di formazioni che collegano il modificatore self (selbst, samo, auto etc.)6 con verbi, nomi deverbali di azione e nomi di agente: ad es. ing. to self track, self-tracking, self-tracker; ted. selbstoptimieren, Selbstoptimierung, Selbstoptimierer; cro./serb./slov. samokontrola, samoregulacija. In tedesco, si tratta spesso di creazioni ibride a forma variabile con l'elemento self/selbst (Selbstmarketing/Selbst-Marketing, Selbst-Branding/ Self-Branding, Self-Tracker/Selbst-Tracker/Selbsttracker, Selbstoptimierer/ Selbst-Optimierer, mentre nelle lingue slave si incontrano calchi co-struiti con elementi autoctoni (cro. samoorganizacija, samopoboljsanje, samoprocjena, samosvijest, samo-odrziv, samozbrinjavanje7). 232 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications Malgrado i numerosi neologismi, si tratta di un modello di forma-zione delle parole non nuovo, come attestano numerosi esempi quali il ted. Selbsteinschätzung, Selbstverwaltung, Selbststudium, Selbstverpflichtung etc. (Crestani 2010: 220), il cro./serb./slov. samoupravljanje, l'it. autogestione, il fr. autogestión etc.: la novita risiede piuttosto nella crescente frequenza delle formazioni di questo tipo, particolarmente ma non esclusivamente in inglese e tedesco, con il modificatore riferito sempre piu spesso non solo alle unita organizzative, ma agli individui. Focalizzandosi sulla lingua tedesca, una riconduzione di questi com-posti - spesso risultati di univerbazione (Bußmann 2008: 763, Morcinek 2012: 83) o incorporazione (Eichinger 2000: 31) - alle corrispondenti predicazioni, dimostra che l'elemento self o selbst puo assumere diversi ruoli semantici. Si trovano da un lato esempi in cui selbst rimanda solo al ruolo dell'Agente (Selbstbasteln), dall'altro esempi in cui selbst, oltre all'Agente, ha il ruolo del Beneficiario che riceve profitto o danno dall'azione (Selbstbedienung, Selbstbefriedigung, Selbsthilfe), per cui si po-trebbe parlare di una variante dei composti benefattivi ("benefaktive Komposita", Ortner 1997: 33), inoltre si incontrano i ruoli dell'Esperiente di uno stato o processo psicologico (Selbsthass, Selbstmitleid, Selbstliebe, Selbstbewunderung), del Paziente influenzato in maggiore o minor misura dall'azione verbale (Selbstmord, Selbsttötung, Selbstverletzung, Selbstreinigung, Selbststilisierung, Selbstinszenierung, Selbstkontrolle), del Tema (Selbsteinschätzung) e dello Strumento (Selbstlernen inteso come apprendimento con l'aiuto di se stesso, con strumenti di apprendimento valutati e applicati dal soggetto stesso, in cui quindi confluiscono i ruoli di apprendente e insegnante). Osservando tuttavia gli esempi di composti emersi o divenuti par-ticolarmente frequenti negli ultimi decenni, sembra ipotizzabile una sottoclasse tematicamente collegabile al discorso sul mercato del lavoro 233 GORANKA ROCCO ► Soggetto autorazionalizzante e mercato del lavoro Si tratta di uno stesso motore di ricerca che raggruppa i risultati per le tre edizioni dello Spiegel. I risultati della ricerca negli archivi online delle riviste citate corrispondono alla consultazione in data 6/11/18. e più omogenea dal punto di vista dei ruoli semantici, in cui selbst esprime maggiormente il duplice ruolo di agente e tema/paziente, quest'ultimo coinvolto dall 'azione del verbo come oggetto di monito-raggio (Selbstevaluation) o di interventi organizzativi o migliorativi (Selbstorganisation, Selbstoptimierung). Questi composti, analizzati nei contesti discorsivi in cui appaiono, sembrano riflettere le richieste del sistema affrontate dal soggetto, nel senso della menzionata hétérono-mie individualisée o contrainte intériorisée di Dardot e Laval (2010: 46). Attraverso numerosi esempi di ibridazione a livello sia lessicale che sintattico, in questa sottoclasse si manifesta una crescente influenza dell'inglese - soprattutto, ma non solo, in tedesco: Selbstmarketing (self-marketing), Selbstmanagement (self-management), Self-Branding o Selbst-Branding, Self-Tracking, Selbst-Tracking o Selbsttracking. Di par-ticolare interesse in relazione alla tendenza alla commodificazione del soggetto autorazionalizzante è lo sviluppo del termine Selbstvermarktung e il passaggio da Selbstvermarktung (ted. + ted.) a Selfmarketing (ingl.+ingl.) - quest'ultimo essendo il termine più recente, attestato ad es. nelle edizioni Spiegel-Online, Spiegel e Manager-Magazin8, nonché nell'archivio del Handelsblatt (www.handelsblatt.com) solo dal 2002 e nella Süddeutsche Zeitung (www.sueddeutsche.de) non prima del 2010. Secondo l'attuale dizionario online Duden (www.du-den.de), nonché il "Das große Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache" del 1999 (3. ed.) e i dizionari più recenti, Selbstvermarktung si riferisce alla commercializzazione (Vermarktung) dei propri prodotti ("Verkauf eigener Produkte direkt an die Verbraucherinnen]"), con degli analo-ghi significati dei nomi d'agente Selbstvermarkter e Selbstvermarkterin in Duden online. Dall'analisi del discorso mediatico, invece, risulta un altro quadro, che intende in primo luogo il marketing di se stesso. Un simile risultato si ottiene inserendo, per allargare la prospettiva, 234 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications Selbstvermarktung nel motore di ricerca google.de, e analizzando i primi 20 risultati: si puo osservare che tutti i 14 siti non dedicati ad informa-zioni di tipo metalinguistico usano Selbstvermarktung come sinonimo o iponimo di Selbstmarketing, a sua volta un calco piu recente dell'in-glese self marketing. In quanto alla tipologia testuale, si tratta, come illustrano i seguenti esempi, quasi esclusivamente di testi o siti che offrono consigli e "regole dell'arte di Selbstvermarktung/Selbstmarketing" (10 Tipps, goldene Regeln), rappresentando quest'ultima come "chiave al successo" professionale: 1) Selbstvermarktung und Selbstmarketing: Wie funktioniert es?9 2) 10 Tipps fürs Selbstmarketing | Business Ladys 3) Zehn goldene Regeln für die Selbstvermarktung - FOCUS Online 4) Gutes Selbstmarketing: Der Schlüssel zum Erfolg - keinStartup.de 5) Wie wichtig ist Selbstvermarktung? Verkaufe dich richtig! 6) Selbstvermarktung: Richtige Eigenwerbung! | karrierebibel.de 7) Die Kunst der Selbstvermarktung | careerplus Fonti degli esempi: ht-tps://www.berufsstra-tegie.de/. ..soft.../selb-stvermarktung.php (1), https://www.businessla-dys.de/10-tipps-fuers-sel-bstmarketing/ (2), https://www.focus. de > Finanzen > Karriere > Berufsleben (3) https://keinstartup.de/ selbstmarketing-per-sonal-branding/ (4), https://bewerbung.net/ wie-wichtig-ist-sel-bstvermarktung/ (5), https://karrierebibel. de/selbstvermarktung/ (6) https://www. careerplus.ch/blog/ kunst-der-selbstver-marktung (7); ultima consultazione 1/11/18. Questo uso si riflette anche nella definizione di Wikipedia, da tenere in considerazione in quanto uno dei più forti modulatori della cultura del sapere (Pscheida 2010) dell'ultimo decennio: il concetto cercato, Selbstvermarktung, non presente su Wikipedia tedesca, invia diret-tamente a quello di Selbstmarketing, definito come approccio di una sistematica e consapevole Selbstvermarktung: "Als Selbstmarketing, Self Marketing oder Ego-Marketing werden alle Ansätze der systematischen und bewussten Selbstvermarktung bezeichnet" (consultato il 6/11/18). Dunque, a differenza della rappresentazione di Selbstvermarktung nei dizionari, il suo uso corrente rimanda a un selbst più vicino alla funzione originaria, riflessiva della particella selbst, non più riferito 235 GORANKA ROCCO ► Soggetto autorazionalizzante e mercato del lavoro 10 Cfr. i numerosi parasintetica denominali come Vernetzung/ vernetzen (Netz), Verschulung/verschulen (Schule), e deaggettivali come verlängern (lang), verbreiten (breit), verschönern (schön) etc. ai prodotti della propria impresa o azienda, ma a se stesso inteso come prodotto o esito dei propri sforzi di Selbstoptimierung, per citare un altro esempio della stessa sottoclasse di composti. Attraverso l'analisi sistematica dei testi riferiti al mercato del lavoro sarebbe dunque da verificare l'ipo-tesi di una concorrenza tra i due composti - il primo (Selbstvermarktung) piu radicato, ma in fase di uno spostamento, nella polisemia referenziale, dell'elemento selbst, il secondo (Selbstmarketing), piu recente, diretta-mente calcato sull'inglese: concorrenza che porta ad un avvicinamento al modello anglosassone non solo in termini del significato referenziale di selbst, ma anche in termini morfologici. Il parasinteticon tipicamente tedesco Vermarktung10 cede il posto ad un esito del processo piu universale dell'univerbazione calcato sul modello sintattico inglese (self marketing - Selbstmarketing). L'addattamento semantico-referenziale di Vermarktung tuttavia non sembra in grado di garantire al termine tedesco una sopravvivenza accanto all'anglicismo, la cui frequenza risulta in crescita. Altri due rappresentanti della sottoclasse di composti focalizzata e ri-sultati dell'ibridazione linguistica sono Self-Tracking (anche Selftracking o Selbsttracking) e Selbstmanagement. Self-Tracking illustra lo sforzo di au-toottimizzazione volto ad aumentare la performance e resilienza delle proprie funzioni vitali, che si manifesta in una permanente autodiagnosi, misurazione e rimisurazione (spesso resa pubblica in reti sociali, creando concorrenti nonché ulteriori valutatori della propria performance), e si appoggia su un numero crescente di prodotti che entrano in simbiosi con il soggetto, i cui nomi, spesso personificazioni (smart watch), esprimo-no la parte di sé o del proprio intelletto che il soggetto autorazionalizzante affida alle macchine, compagni di viaggio e attenti supervisor del proprio corpo concepito come work in progress. Selbstmanagement sembra meritare ulteriori approfondimenti soprat-tutto in base alla sua crescente frequenza nell'ambito della formazione 236 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications universitaria e/o professionale e nel discorso sulla formazione per il mer- 11 Cfr. http://www.stu- cato del lavoro. Nell offerta formativa per studenti e laureandi, l allena- dierendenakademie. t x hhu.de/kubus.html mento al Selbstmanagement, Selbstmarketing o Selbstoptimierung e inteso come un contributo alla flessibilità e resilienza del futuro lavoratore. Per citare alcuni esempi, il programma di orientamento professionale KUBUS (acronimo per Karriere und Berufsorientierung und Studium11) dell'Università di Düsseldorf offre una serie di corsi che si prefiggono di far sviluppare al soggetto che sta per affrontare la vita lavorativa l'at-teggiamento consono alle richieste del mercato. Nei titoli dei corsi elencati come Zeit- und Selbstmanagement, Zeitmanagement und Selbstorganisation si manifesta il duplice ruolo di selbst come agente e paziente. La crescente importanza di un tipo di formazione che alla volta riflette e promuove la commodificazione del sapere, traspare inoltre nel successo translinguistico dell'isotopia metaforica del contenitore che serve per standardizzare, immagazzinare, misurare e commercializzare gli esiti del processo di apprendimento: i sintagmi presenti in varie lingue come Portfolio Europeo delle Lingue o Portfolio delle Competenze personali (Europäisches Sprachenportfolio, Das Portfolio der individuellen Kompetenzen) rispecchiano l'ideale di una formazione che mette al centro le competenze certificate e certificabili di cui rendere conto in riferimento ai criteri di valutazione stabiliti, elementi di un dispositivo che fa funzionare il soggetto come un'impresa, spingendolo sempre ad andare oltre se stesso (ibd. p. 89, Dar-dot/Laval 2009: 447s.). Conte parla in questo contesto dell'"asservimento della formazione al progetto antropologico neoliberale" (2016: 88); per Dardot e Laval il punto sul quale il discorso neoliberale insiste e "fournir à l'économie les individus les mieux adaptés à la guerre commerciale généralisée, c'est-à-dire les plus performants" (Dardot/Laval 2010: 42). Ulteriori proprietà target del soggetto autorazionalizzante si rispecchiano nel lessico intorno al concetto di resilienza come Resilienzsteigerung, 237 GORANKA ROCCO ► Soggetto autorazionalizzante e mercato del lavoro 12 L'esempio (8) e tratto dalla presentazione della pubblicazione di Monica Gruhl (2014) con il titolo "Die Strategie der Stehauf-Menschen" (https://www. resilienzzentrum. de/pages/posts/ die-strategie-der-stehauf-menschen-monika-gruhl-95. php), l'esempio (9) dalla sopra menzionata pubblicazione del KUBUS, http://www. medrsd.hhu.de/en/ veranstaltungen-kur-se/kubus/kubus-resi-lienz-training.html Resilienz-Trainer, Resilienz-Strategie e Resilienz-Profi e nella metafora del Stehauf-Mensch, frequenti nei titoli e nelle presentazioni di libri (8) e se-minari (9) dedicati alla resilienza: 8) Die Resilienztrainerin Monika Gruhl zeigt, wie jeder Mensch ein Stehauf-Mensch sein kann12. 9) Resilienz ist in den letzten Jahrzehnten gründlich erforscht worden. Lässt sich die Kraft der Stehauf-Menschen trainieren? Ganz eindeutig: Ja! Mithilfe des Resilienz-Profils ermitteln Sie Ihren eigenen Stand. Per concludere le considerazioni di questo paragrafo, va sottolinea-to il desideratum di approfondire in modo sistematico, differenziando contesti e tipologie testuali, le qui ipotizzate tracce che il discorso sul mercato del lavoro, su occupabilità, autorazionalizzazione, flessibilizza-zione e resilienza lascia nel linguaggio. A questo desideratum si collega la questione delle percezioni e degli atteggiamenti all'interno di varie categorie professionali che possono essere più o meno coinvolte negli sviluppi descritti. Al centro delle considerazioni che seguono saranno alcuni aspetti della situazione dei mediatori linguistici e futuri esperti linguistici e la formazione degli stessi. 3. IL MEDIATORE DAVANTI ALL'lMPERATIVO DELL'AUTORAZIONALIZZAZIONE Flessibilità, resilienza, life long learning inteso come un continuo sforzo di adattamento delle proprie risorse: come si articolano, nei confronti degli imperativi del mercato del lavoro attuale, le prospettive occupa-zionali della categoria di esperti e mediatori linguistici italiani? Di par-ticolare interesse è questa categoria per diversi motivi, tra cui in primo luogo la natura della professione del mediatore, che, pur richiedendo 238 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications un alto livello di professionals e responsabilita, in paragone con diverse altre professioni risulta istituzionalmente meno protetta, nonché piu dipendente da chiamate o progetti e piu sottoposta all' outsourcing. In secondo luogo, rilevante é il fatto che sia un'attivita svolta prevalen-temente dalle donne, categoria generalmente piu vulnerabile dal punto di vista retribuzionale (cfr. Rocco 2018: 47-50) e piu esposta ai rischi della precarizzazione; in terzo luogo, é da considerare l'effetto ambivalente dei progressi di intelligenza artificiale e delle nuove tecnologie, che si traducono, fra l'altro, in una maggiore richiesta di flessibilita e un maggiore potenziale di automazione di diverse professioni. Per darne un esempio, il sito Job-Futuromat13, un prodotto delle ricerche dell'ínstitut für Arbeitsmarkt und Berufsforschung dell'Agenzia federale del lavoro tedesca Bundesagentur für Arbeit che calcola il tasso di automa-tizzabilita per diverse professioni, offre su richiesta anche le prognosi per alcune professioni specializzate all'interno della categoria mediatori linguistici che, anche se da interpretare con cautela, non vanno trascurate: per darne alcuni esempi, la percentuale del lavoro sostitu-ibile dai robot calcolata dal Job-Futuromat é del 50% per la professione Schriftdolmetscher/in, del 40% per la professione Wirtschaftsdolmetscher/ in/-übersetzer/in, del 33% per la professione Fremdsprachensekretar/in. Quali tendenze si delineano a questo proposito nelle percezioni dei laureandi e laureati in lingue e mediazione? Dai questionari ef-fettuati con i laureandi e laureati in lingue e mediazione nell'ambito del menzionato progetto "Mercato del lavoro per mediatori linguistici neolaureati: inserimento, prospettive, problematiche" si deduce che la maggior parte dei laureandi italiani14 ritiene che le competenze ac-quisite nello studio corrispondono almeno in parte alle richieste del mercato del lavoro italiano per i mediatori: la somma delle risposte "si" (15%), "piuttosto si" (33%) e "in parte" (43%) si aggira intorno al 91% 13 Cfr. https://job-futu-romat.iab.de/; ultima consultazione 1/12/18. 14 Qui si tratta di 300 partecipanti italiani al primo dei due sondaggi svolti all'in-terno del progetto. 239 GORANKA ROCCO ► Soggetto autorazionalizzante e mercato del lavoro (in confronto: 8% "piuttosto no" e 1% "no"). In quanto alle competenze considérate mancanti, prevalgono le risposte riducibili a "economía, commercio e finanze" e "software di traduzione e competenze di informatica" (anche se si registrano anche i riferimenti alle competenze di tipo giuridico-amministrativo e il desiderio di possedere migliori competenze linguistiche, di traduzione e mediazione). Anche i giu-dizi sulle opportunita dei mediatori linguistici sul mercato del lavoro in paragone con gli altri laureati segnalano un atteggiamento tra neutro e positivo: solo il 20% dei partecipanti considera le opportunita come "piuttosto scarse/ridotte", e complessivamente l'8o% come "medie" (53%), "piuttosto buone" (23%) o "ottime" (4%). Nelle risposte aperte (ad es. spiegazioni o commenti a singole risposte chiuse), si trovano tuttavia delle osservazioni che suggeriscono uno sguardo differenzia-to sia sugli attuali vantaggi che sugli svantaggi della professione. Per citarne alcuni aspetti spesso problematizzati: Non credo che i datori di lavoro diano il giusto valore a questa figura; I problemi principali sono che non si conosce bene la figura del tradutto-re e soprattutto dell'interprete e che le retribuzioni sono basse; Credo che algiorno doggi cisia una tendenza a sottovalutare questa professione (mediatore linguistico) anche se non ne capisco il motivo; Tariffe di pagamento basse per i traduttori (es: committenti che chiedo-no anche 0,5 cent a parola); 240 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications Offerta sul mercato di media frequenza e retribuzione da precaria a media; Mercato del lavoro in evoluzione, diverse figure professionali (vecchie e nuove), necessita di una formazione "nuova" (tecnologie, software) richiesta dalle aziende. Una serie di osservazioni tematizza la concorrenza da parte di parlanti madrelingua della lingua in questione, non professionisti di mediazione: Un problema e la concorrenza e la poca tutela della professione in sé. Si e convinti che basti saper parlare in una lingua per essere automaticamente in grado di tradurre/interpretare. (...): Concorrenza sleale da parte di persone che si improvvisano interpreti e traduttori, obbligo di fare qualcosa di molto specifico senza poter trop-po spaziare, stipendio basso; Ci sono opportunita lavorative, ma in tanti ambiti si preferisco-no persone non specializzate in questo campo perché possono essere pagate meno, Il mercato per mediatori linguistici e molto ridotto rispetto ad altri es. avvocati o ingegneri, non esiste un albo per mediatori, non e una figura professionale riconosciuta globalmente e spesso le aziende si affidano a mediatori e traduttori non professionisti; troppi madrelingua. 241 GORANKA ROCCO ► Soggetto autorazionalizzante e mercato del lavoro Il comportamento legato alla ricerca di lavoro, nella maggior parte dei casi, non è qualificabile come proattivo. Riassumendo varie categorie di risposta (da "mai" a "ogni giorno/un giorno su due"), risulta che tre quarti dei partecipanti si informano sulle offerte di lavoro meno frequentemente di una volta al mese; riassumendo le risposte in rife-rimento alle esperienze lavorative, risulta altresi che il 52% dei partecipanti sono studenti a tempo pieno e che il 16% hanno esperienze lavorative che vanno oltre il mese. Significativo, anche in riferimento ai giudizi e comportamenti ri-portati, è l'atteggiamento nei confronti degli sviluppi e delle riforme del mercato del lavoro ("A tuo avviso, l'ultima riforma del lavoro (il Jobs act) ha migliorato o peggiorato le prospettive di per i giovani laurea-ti?"): qui si registra un tasso del 58% dei laureandi che hanno scelto la risposta "So poco/non so niente sul Jobs act", a cui si unisce un 2% di partecipanti senza risposta, presumibilmente assimilabili al gruppo senza atteggiamento in merito. Il resto delle risposte si divide preva-lentemente tra i giudizi "in parte migliorato, in parte peggiorato" (18%) e "peggiorato" (12%), con alcune precisazioni registrate nella seguente richiesta di spiegazioni o comenti: Migliorato perché dà più possibilité ai giovani di acquisire esperienze professionali; peggiorato perché i contratti sono soprattutto a tempo determinato e non danno garanzie per il futuro; A molti laureati è stata proposta unesperienza lavorativa che in prece-denza non sarebbe stata loro offerta, ma, dallaltra parte, il posto offerto non è generalmente stabile; 242 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications Nell'immediato sicuramente ha portato ad una crescita delle assunzio-ni, a lungo termine non so quanti miglioramenti possa aver apportato"; Si sono abolite tutele basilari per i lavoratori; Il jobs act ha introdotto nuovi modi per nascondere il lavoro in nero e la situazione per i giovani continua a non migliorare; Una riforma che da poche garanzie e tanti problemi. Insicurezza sul futuro e meno vantaggi rispetto a prima. In quanto alle aspirazioni professionali, in un mondo di crescente flessibilizzazione e precarizzazione, la stabilita del lavoro continua ad essere percepita come centrale accanto alla crescita professionale (due valori dominanti anche secondo i sondaggi di Almalaurea rivolti a tutti i gruppi disciplinari, riassunti in Rocco 2018: 52). Paragonando le aspettative dei laureandi italiani con quelle dei 72 laureandi tedeschi intervistati15, si notano parallelismi sia in rife-rimento ai primi quattro aspetti valutati come piu importanti, crescita professionale, stabilita, buona retribuzione e attinenza del campo di lavoro (campo della traduzione e/o interpretazione), centrali in entrambi i gruppi, sia rispetto ai valori medi degli aspetti lavoro statale e lavoro telematico, bassi in entrambi i gruppi. Emergono tuttavia differenze legate alla mobilita: l'aspirazione di lavorare all'estero, piu forte nel gruppo italiano (quinto posto nel gruppo italiano e settimo nel grup-po tedesco) e il desiderio di vicinanza del posto di lavoro alla famiglia e agli amici - contrariamente ai relativi stereotipi sul ruolo dei legami familiari e sulla mancante flessibilita piu forte nel gruppo tedesco. 15 La fig. 1 rappresenta le medie del gruppo italiano e tedesco, calcolate in base ai valori da 5 ("molto importante/mi interessa molto") a 1 ("non mi importa/non mi interessa") assegnati dai partecipanti ai singoli aspetti del lavoro (possibilité di crescita, stabilité etc.). Le medie del gruppo italiano sono rappresentate in ordine decrescente, le medie del gruppo tedesco seguono lo stesso ordine degli aspetti elencati, per facilitare il paragone. 243 GORANKA ROCCO ► Soggetto autorazionalizzante e mercato del lavoro GRUPPO ITALIANO GRUPPO TEDESCO Un lavoro che mi faccia crescere professionalmente 4,65 4,24 Un lavoro stabile e sicuro 4,61 3,97 Un lavoro ben pagato 4,38 4,08 Un lavoro nel campo della traduzione e/o interpretazione 4,00 3,71 Un lavoro all'estero 3,71 3,22 Un lavoro in azienda grande/multinazionale 3,57 3,25 Un lavoro prestigioso 3,56 3,07 Un lavoro in azienda privata 3.50 2,72 Un lavoro free-lance/autonomo 3,22 2,82 Un posto di lavoro vicino alla famiglia e agli amici 3,11 3,49 Un lavoro in azienda piccola 3,08 2,92 Un lavoro in ambito umanitario (p.es. in una Ong) 3,06 2,81 Un lavoro nel campo dell'insegnamento 3,00 2,64 Un lavoro statale 2,81 2,79 Un lavoro prevalentemente telematico 2,33 2,00 16 Mentre la domanda per il gruppo italiano riguarda il Jobs act, la domanda del questionario tedesco si riferisce alle riforme nell'ambito della cosiddetta Agenda 2010 e delle "leggi Hartz" (Hartz-Gesetze). Tra i due gruppi emergono anche altri atteggiamenti in comune, quale un certo disinteresse nei confronti del mercato del lavoro, che si manifesta ad esempio nel fatto che entrambi i gruppi cercano raramente informazioni sulle offerte di lavoro (ca. tre quarti di entrambi i gruppi meno di una volta al mese) e risultano prevalentemente (67% dei tedeschi, 60% degli italiani) non informati sulle rispettive riforme del mercato del lavoro e sul loro impatto sulle prospettive lavorative dei giovani16. Le differenze più significative emergono in quanto alla disponibi-lità, significativamente più alta nel gruppo italiano, a svolgere stage o tirocini non retribuiti dopo gli studi: il 39% degli laureandi italiani investirebbe in questi tipi di attività "un anno" (34%) o "più di un anno" (5%), contro il 14% dei tedeschi che investirebbero massimo "un anno" (nessuno ha scelto la categoria "più di un anno"). Per contro, il 15% 244 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications dei tedeschi e solo il 2% degli italiani non sarebbe disposto a investire il proprio tempo in uno stage non retribuito. Dai questionari condotti con il più ristretto gruppo dei già laureati (complessivamente 60), soprattutto nelle domande aperte, si mani-festano in modo più netto alcuni aspetti già registrati nel gruppo dei laureandi: varie risposte alla domanda aperta su quali siano le op-portunità, i problemi o gli sviluppi sfavorevoli sul mercato del lavoro italiano per i mediatori linguistici fanno emergere la coscienza della precarietà e precarizzazione, ma anche la menzionata percezione di ri-schio e instabilità (par. 1). Precarizzazione e status del lavoro di mediatore; Flessibilizzazione, tariffe sempre più basse, lavoro di bassa qualità e frustrante; Concorrenza, status del lavoro, traduzione automatica alienante, poca esperienza, congiuntura economica difficile; Concorrenza e scarsa competenza e quindi richiesta di retribuzione di altri traduttori e interpreti di altra formazione; traduzione automatica, concorrenza di persone che semplicemente sanno due lingue ma non hanno studiato interpretazione/mediazione/ traduzione quindi chiedono tariffe bassissime Per quanto mi riguarda laspetto più difficile è il riuscire ad ottene-re un lavoro a tempo indeterminato, che mi sia sicurezza e stabili-tà economica; 245 GORANKA ROCCO ► Soggetto autorazionalizzante e mercato del lavoro Le opportunitá sono basse, forse un po piu alte nel campo della tradu-zione. Il problema riguarda l'ignoranza da parte dei 'datori di lavoro' che credono che, solo conoscendo una lingua, la si possa facilmente mediare. Per questo si ricorre a incompetenti nel campo, sotto-pagati, o a traduzioni automatiche. La precarizzazione e un problema che si riscontra nella mag-gioranza dei settori lavorativi, non solo quello dei mediatori linguistici; La situazione odierna nel mercato del lavoro per un laureato in media-zione linguistica e abbastanza complicata se si desidera esercitare una professione che rispecchi esattamente gli studi. Quello che penso io e che solitamente le persone che hanno intrapreso questo tipo di studi tendono ad essere piuttosto aperte e intraprendenti, cid significa avere capacitá di adattamento. Per ora - secondo la mia opinione e la mia esperienza -i giovani lavoratori devono essere in grado di adattarsi e di creare poi una figura professionale che diventi indispensabile, ad esempio all'interno di unazienda. In questo momento storico, i giovani lavoratori non hanno voce in capitolo, il mondo del lavoro decide, sta a noi essere capaci di adat-tarci oppure no. Come illustra l'ultima risposta citata, si nota anche l'interiorizzazione dell'idea di essere necessariamente esposti alle fluttuazioni del mercato del lavoro, alla concorrenza e agli imperativi dell'automatizzazione e della necessita di adattamento - parte integrale del discorso sulla flessibilizzazione (Rocco 2015b, in stampa). considerazioni finali Quali sono le implicazioni delle tendenze osservate sul piano formativo? Da un lato, si potrebbe optare per una strada (peraltro 246 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications lastricata di anglicismi), che, credesi, porti ad una maggiore employa-bility in un mercato di lavoro sempre piu on demand, che premia la capacita di adattamento e autocreazione attraverso self management, self marketing, self branding e self tracking e le strategie che mettono gli indici di rentabilita davanti all'ethos lavorativo e alla qualita del lavoro, trasformando sempre piu professionisti in rappresentanti e promotori della gig economy o in assistenti dei macchinari. Questo significherebbe, tra l'altro, attrezzare i futuri mediatori nella massima misura possi-bile con un know how che permetta una fruttuosa collaborazione con l'intelligenza artificiale, anche a prezzo di contribuire ulteriormente all'automatizzazione del proprio mestiere, inculcare loro una flessi-bilita e capacita di autorazionalizzarsi che permetta di partecipare con successo alla gara di chi offre piu servizio per meno retribuzione. D'altro lato, si potrebbe anche partire dall'ipotesi diametralmente opposta all'ottimizzazione perpetua del soggetto secondo i trends del mercato, e dare la precedenza ad una formazione piu olistica, che porti ad una piu profonda coscienza sia degli sviluppi attuali che dei diritti fondamentali di un lavoratore: una formazione che permetta lo sviluppo del senso critico e della capacita di valorizzare e difendere lo status della propria professione dalle derive dell'economia della promessa e della gig economy. v 247 GORANKA ROCCO ► Soggetto autorazionalizzante e mercato del lavoro Bibliografia ajana, btihaj, 2017: Introduction. Self-Tracking: Empirical and Philosophical Investigations. Ed. Btihaj Ajana. Basingbroke: Palgrave Macmillan. 1-10. balint, IUDITHA, 2017: Erzählte Entgrenzungen: Narrationen von Arbeit zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts. Paderborn: Fink. brieler, ulrich, 2013: Der neoliberale Charakter. DISS-Journal 26 (2013). 20-21. [http://www.diss-duisburg.de/download/ dissjournal-dl/DISS-Journal-26-2013.pdf] bussmann, hadumod, 2008: Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Kröner. conte, Mino, 2016: Teoria critica della società e dell'educazione. La forma impossibile: Introduzione alla filosofia dell'educazione. Ed. Mino Conte. Padova: libreriauniversitaria.it edizioni. crestani, Valentina, 2010: Wortbildung und Wirtschaftssprachen: Vergleich deutscher und italienischer Texte. Bern: Peter Lang. dardot, pierre & LAVAL, Christian, 2009: La nouvelle raison du monde. Essai sur la société néolibérale ", Paris: La Découverte. dardot pierre & laval Christian, 2010: Néolibéralisme et subjectivation capitaliste. Cités 2010/1 n° 41. 35-50. [https://www.cairn.info/revue-cites-2010-1-page-35.htm] denozza, francesco, 2018: Regole e mercato nel diritto neoliberale. Regole e mercato. Ed. Marilena Rispoli Farina et al. XV-XLV. duden, 1999: Das große Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache in 10 Bänden, 2. ed. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut. Eichinger, ludwig, m., 2000: Deutsche Wortbildung: eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr. 248 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications evans, brad / REID, julian, 2014: Resilient Life: The Art of Living Dangerously. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press. foessel; michaël, 2010: Du sujet économique à l'homme capable. Revue des deux mondes, janvier 2010, 116-127. foucault, Michel, 2004: Naissance de la biopolitique. Cours au collège de France (1978-1979). Paris: Gallimard-Seuil. FRUSCIONE, GIORGIO, 2016: STORIA: Alija Sirotanovic, eroe del lavoro socialista. East Journal, 24 marzo 2016. [http://www.eastjournal.net/archives/70657] Hochschild, ARLIE russel, 2002: Keine Zeit. Wenn die Firma zum Zuhause wird und zu Hause nur Arbeit wartet. Opladen: Leske und Budrich. morcinek, bettina, 2012: Getrennt- und Zusammenschreibung: Wie aus syntaktischen Strukturen komplexe Verben wurden. Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache. Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte. Ed. Livio Gaeta & Barbara. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. 83-100. ortner, lorelies, 1997: Zur angemessenen Berücksichtigung der Semantik im Bereich der deutschen Kompositaforschung. Am Beispiel der Komposita mit "Haben"-Relation. Wortbildung und Phraseologie. Ed. Rainer Wimmer & Franz-Josef Berens. Tübingen: Narr. 25-44. POLANYI, karl, 1974: La grande trasformazione. Le origini economiche e politiche della nostra epoca. Torino, Einaudi (ed. orig. 1944). pscheida, daniela, 2010: Das Wikipedia-Universum: Wie das Internet unsere Wissenskultur verändert. Bielefeld: Transcript. rabinbach, anson, 2001: Motor Mensch: Kraft, Ermüdung und die Urspünge der Moderne. Wien: Turia und Kant. 249 GORANKA ROCCO ► Soggetto autorazionalizzante e mercato del lavoro Rettberg, Jill walker, 2018: Apps as Companions: How Quantified Self Apps Become Our Audience and Our Companions. Self-Tracking: Empirical and Philosophical Investigations. Ed. Btihaj Ajana. Basingbroke: Palgrave Macmillan. 27-42 RICOEUR, Paul, 2001: Autonomie e fragilité. Le Juste 2. Paris: Editions Esprit. ROCCO, GORANKA, 2015: Politische Inszenierung der Flexibilisierung aus diskurslinguistischer Sicht. Politische und mediale Diskurse. Fallstudien aus der Romania. Ed. Anja Hennemann & Claudia Schlaak. 83-111. ROCCO, GORANKA, 2018: Mercato per i laureati in lingue nella società dei lavori: prospettive e atteggiamenti. Le lingue dei centri linguistici nelle sfide europee e internazionali: formazione e mercato del lavoro. Ed. Bagna, Carla et al. Pisa: ETS. 43-59. ROCCO, GORANKA, 2019: Flexibilisierung und Persuasion. Linguistik Online, 97(4), 133-151. [https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.97.5599] VOSS, G. GÜNTHER & PONGRATZ, HANS J., 1998: Der Arbeitskraftunternehmer. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 50 (1), 131-158. PONGRATZ, Hans j. & Voss, G. günther (2003): From employee to 'entreployee': Towards a 'self-entrepreneurial' work force? Concepts and Transformation, VIII, 3, 2003, 239-254. VÖHRINGER, Margarete, 2007: Avantgarde und Psychotechnik. Wissenschaft, Kunst und Technik der Wahrnehmungsexperimente in der frühen Sowjetunion. Göttingen: Wallstein. 250 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications till, chris, 2018: Self-Tracking as the Mobilisation of the Social for Capital Accumulation. Self-Tracking: Empirical and Philosophical Investigations. Ed. Btihaj Ajana. Basingbroke: Palgrave Macmillan. 77-92. traverso, enzo, 2018: What Does "Totalitarianism" Mean in Today's Geopolitical Landscape? E-flux conversations. [https://conversations.e-flux.com/t7what-does-totalitarianism-mean-in-todays-geopolitical-landscape/7681] 251 GORANKA ROCCO ► Soggetto autorazionalizzante e mercato del lavoro Summary The article explores some developments on the current labor market, the impact of these developments on the language and especially their influence on the profession of Language mediator. The first chapter („Self-rationalizing subject as a trans-disciplinary research object") departs from the phenomenon framed in the philosophical and sociological literature as the "neoliberal subject" („sujet néolibéral", „soggetto neoliberale", „neoliberales Subjekt") and arrives to a broader and more integrative concept of the "self-rationalizing subject" ("soggetto autorazionalizzante")". The second chapter („Traces of the self-rationalizing subject in the language") explores the evidence of the investigated trends in the current language, giving particular attention to the word formation and the semantic roles of the element self (selbst, samo, auto) and providing examples mainly from German, but also from Slavic and other languages. On the basis of a survey among mediation students and graduated mediators, the third chapter („The mediator facing the imperative of the self-rationalization") investigates the repercussions of the explored trends for language mediators and language experts; the final chapter („Final considerations") reflects on their educational implications in the focused field. Goranka Rocco Ricercatrice e professore aggregato di Lingua e traduzione tedesca all'Università di Trieste, Sezione di Studi in Lingue Moderne per Interpreti e Traduttori (SSLMIT/Dipartimento IUSLIT), dottorato di ricerca all'Università di Düsseldorf, laureata all'Università di Zagreb. 252 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications Campi di ricerca: analisi del discorso, testologia contrastiva, pragma-linguistica, sociolinguistica, linguaggi settoriali, traduzione specialistica e traduzione dell'oralitä fittizia. Numerosi lavori in riviste scientifiche, pro-getti di ricerca e borse di ricerca in collaborazione con le universitä tedesche, collaborazioni con riviste e collane scientifiche e con le case editrici (Duden, Liebaug-Dartmann). 2017 Abilitazione per professore associato in Lingua e traduzione tedesca, 2018 Premio Mittner per le Scienze della traduzione. 253 Appendix Ivan Vere — Izbrana bibliografija Ivan Vere — Selected Bibliography SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications 1977 »Cankar in Dostojevski (nastavitev nekaterih problemov).« Sodobnost 7 (1977): 754-758. »Književnost in pust: Kraški pust med Fojem in Bahtinom. Letteratura e carnevale: il Carnevale carsico tra Fo e Bachtin.« Most 49-50 (1977): 180-193. B^py^. L'improvviso in Dostoevski]. Trieste: Est-Ztt, 1977. 1978 »O Heo^ugaHHOM geMCTBMM y ^ocToeBCKoro.« Canadian-American Slavic Studies 12.3/Fall (1978): 408-412. 1980 Appunti sulla letteratura russa. Metodi e verifiche, Sassari: Dessi, 1980, str. 124. 1981 »K Bonpocy 0 TaK Ha3tiBaeM0M Tpag^MM' ^ocToeBCKoro b flByx peg;a^Max poMaHa 'Bop' £.M. ^e0H0Ba.« Dostoevsky Studies. Journal of The International Dostoevsky Society 2 (1981): 119-128. »Ob stoletnici smrti Fjodora Mihajloviča Dostojevskega. Umetnik za sodobno razmišljanje.« Primorski dnevnik 13-14.3 (1981). 1982 »Lannonudo», romanzodiBorisPilnjak (conunsaggiosulla teoria del genere grottesco di Aleksander Skaza). Sassari: Dessi, 1982. »Nekaj izhodišč za analizo poetike rusko-sovjetskega romana dvajsetih let.« Jezik in slovstvo 4 (1982-1983): 106-111. 257 Ivan Verč - Selected Bibliography »Sulla cosiddetta 'tradizione' dostoevskiana nelle due versioni del romanzo 'Il ladro' di L.M. Leonov.« Actualité de Dostoevskij. Genova: La Quercia, 1982. 181-195. »Ženitev ali komedija o svetu, ki ga ni.« Gledališki list Slovenskega stalnega gledališča v Trstu 3 (1982): 5-7. (Special issue: Nikolaj Vasiljevič Gogolj: Ženitev). 1983 »Per non dividere Majakovskij.« Miazzi A. Majakovski e i manifesti della Rosta. Sassari: Universita degli Studi. Facolta di Magistero, 1983. 3-6. »Umrl je starosta italijanskih slavistov Ettore Lo Gatto.« Jezik in slovstvo 2-3 (1983-1984): 105-106. »'BeHHtiM My»' O.M. ^ocToeBCKoro u HeKOTOptie Bonpocti o »aHpe npoM3BefleHMa.« Dostoevsky Studies. Journal of The International Dostoevsky Society 4 (1983): 69-79. Limiti e possibilita della tradizione dantesca nello sviluppo del romanzorusso (Gogol'. Dostoevskij. Belyj. Pilnjak. Bulgakov. Erofeev). Sassari: Universita degli Studi. Facolta di Magistero, 1983. nunbMK u fíocmoeecKuü (no Mamepuany poMana Tonbiü zod'), Sassari: Universita degli Studi di Sassari. Istituto di Germanistica e Slavistica, 1983. 1984 »Lirizacija ekspresionistične besede v Pregljevi noveli Thabiti Kumi.« Obdobje ekspresionizma v slovenskem jeziku, književnosti in kulturi. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Univerze v Ljubljani, 1984. 463-475. »Usoda Dantejevih 'Nebes' v razvojni poti ruskega romana.« Primerjalna književnost 2 (1984): 24-38. 258 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications »Zamejstvo, ustvarjalnost in ideologija.« Nova revija 24-25 (1984): 2872-2875. »nu.BHaK u ^0CT0eBCKMM (Ha MaTepua^e poMaHa Tmbim rog').« Slavica XXI (1984): 171-186. (Annales Instituti philologiae slavicae Universitatis Debreceniensis de Ludovico Kossuth nominatae). 1985 »Faj A., I Karamazov tra Poe e Vico. Genere poliziesco e concezione ciclica della storia nell'ultimo Dostoevskij, Napoli 1984.« Dostoevsky Studies. Journal of The International Dostoevsky Society 6 (1985): 187-189. »Pismo o Skupini 85.« Primorski dnevnik, 18.5.1985. 1986 »Bressan A., Le avventure della parola, Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1985.« Metodi e ricerche 2 (1986): 99-101. »Italijan predstavlja našo književnost Italijanom. Arnaldo A. Bressan: Le avventure della parola, Milano 1985, Il Saggiatore.« Primorska srečanja 59 (1986): 48-50. »La libertà di essere sloveni.« Il territorio 16-17 (1986): 73-79. »Vozli sožitja. Srečanje s Skupino 85.« Glasnik Slovenskega kulturnega društva Tabor IV/14 (1986): 33-35. »HeKOToptie MCTopMHecKO-TeopeTMHecKMe BonpocH pMTMMnecKOM npo3H. (Pa3pymeHMe HopMH m.m ecrecTBeHHocTB .MTepaTypHoM ^BO.ro^MM?).« Andrej Belyj. Pro et contra. Milano: Unicopli, 1986. 265-273. »Pa3MHm.eHMa o HaynHoM nogxoge k M3yneHMro mctopmm pyccKoM Ky.BTypti.« Studia Russica IX (1986): 196-202. 259 Ivan Verč - Selected Bibliography 1987 »Essere e sloveno.« Informazioni regionali 4-5 (1987): XXVI-XXVIII. »Nekaj pripomb k razvoju slovenske literarnokritiške misli tridesetih let.« Obdobje socialnega realizma v slovenskem jeziku, književnosti in kulturi. Ljubljana, 1987: Filozofska fakulteta, 103-108. »Realideološka gesla, identiteta kulture in zamejstvo.« Primorski dnevnik 28-29.1 (1987). »Ruski semiolog Lotman v Trstu.« Primorski dnevnik 20.12 (1987). »Spremna beseda. Pomensko-informativni potopis. Kronološki in bibliografski pregledi.« Puškin A.S. Jevgenij Onjegin. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1987 (2. izd. 1994, 3. izd. 1998). 229-338. »Uredniška beležka. Dvoje prispevkov k vprašanju notranje identifikacije.« Ednina, dvojina, večina. Ur. M. Kravos in I. Verč. Trst: Est-Ztt, 1987. 7-9; 112-130. »^MTepaTypHaa ^TMKa KaK npaKCMC xyp;o»ecrBeHHoro MHmaeHMH. K TeopeTMnecKOM nocraHOBKe ^0^TMHecK0^0 Bonpoca.« Studia Russica XI (1987): 167-196. Ednina, dvojina, večina: petnajst prispevkov k vprašanju identitete, sožitja in življenja v narodnostno mešanem okolju / Clavora... [et al.]; [izbrala in uredila Ivan Verč in Marko Kravos; tekste v italijanščini prevedla Marjuča Cenda]. Trst : Založništvo tržaškega tiska, 1987 (v Gorici : Grafica Goriziana) 260 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications 1988 »Come essere sloveni oggi in Italia.« Trieste cosí come. Trieste: Edizioni Dedalolibri, 1988. 149-162. »Pogovor z Ivanom Verčem.« Spraševal A. Zorn. Nova revija 80 (1988): 1887-1896. »Preambolo allo statuto del Gruppo 85.« Skupina 85. Bilten, št. 1-2, Trst, februar 1988, str. 3. »KaK u Ha hto nepeBoguMa nuTeparypHaa 3ruKa y nymKUHa.« Studia Russica XII (1988): 11-18. 1989 »Blokirano mišljenje.« Naši razgledi XXXVIII/18(905).22.9 (1989): 520-521. »'Kolchoznoe solnce': alcuni aspetti della metafora nel racconto 'Vprok' di Andrej Platonov.« Dalla forma allo spirito. Milano: Guerini e Associati, 1989. 189-207. »Limiti e possibilita della tradizione dantesca nello sviluppo del romanzo russo.« Dantismo e cornice europea. Firenze: Olschki 1989. 23-45. »Manjšina - žrtev ideoloških bojev?« Dnevnik (Sobotna priloga), 16.9 (1989). »Nekaj besed o literarni znanosti.« Bilten Slavističnega društva Trst-Gorica-Videm 3 (1989): 2-7. »Nekatere značilnosti ubeseditve bodočnosti v delih F.M. Dostojevskega in vprašanja literarne evolucije podob mesta in vrta.« Jezik in slovstvo XXXV/6 (1989/1990): 125-133. »Pogovor z Ivanom Verčem.« Spraševal A. Zorn. Delo. Glasilo K.P.I. za slovensko narodno manjšino 23/31.1. (1989): 7-11. 1990 »'Novi val' in tradicija ruske literature.« Literatura 9 (1990): 111-116. 261 Ivan Verč - Selected Bibliography »Kaj si pričakujem od K.P.I. v 90. letih?« Delo. Glasilo K.P.I. za slovensko narodno manjšino 2/27.1. (1990): 1, 4. »La propria verità e quella degli altri.« Sipario 499/giugno- luglio (1990): 2. »Leonid Leonov.« Histoire de la littérature russe. III/3: Le XXe siècle: Gels et Dégels. Paris: Fayard, 1990. 96-105. »Patetične misli.« Mladje 69/september (1990): 66-70. 1991 »Leonid Leonov.« Storia della letteratura russa. III/3: Il Novecento: Dal realismo socialista ai nostri giorni. Torino: Einaudi, 1991. 113-123. »Marko Sosič in njegovi romani na treh straneh.« Sosič M. Rosa na steklu. Trst: Est-Ztt, 1991. 69-71. »3aMeTKu 06 yronMnecKMx crpaHM^x B. X.e6HMK0Ba.« 3ayMHUû fyymypusM u dadau3M e pyccKoû xynbmype. Bern-Berlin-Frankfurt a.M.-New York-Paris-Wien: Peter Lang, 1991. 141-152. 1992 »Aspetti funzionali della letteratura nel processo storico-culturale russo.« Itinerari 2 (1992): 113-120. (Special issue: Nazione, storia e scienze sociali fra Otto e Novecento. Atti del Convegno Internazionale. Pescara, 9-10 aprile 1991). »Osservazioni sulla 'biografia' nello sviluppo storico letterario russo del Novecento (O »aHpe '6Morpa$Ma b pyccKOM MCTOpMKO-.MTepaTypHOM pa3BMTMM XX-ro BeKa).« Studi slavistici offerti a Alessandro Ivanov nel suo 70. compleanno. Udine: Università degli Studi. Istituto di Lingue e Letterature dell'Europa Orientale, 1992. 361-369. 262 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications »San Pietroburgo come rappresentazione letteraria.« I quaderni del teatro 47 (1992): 27-31. (Special isssue: Oblomov, di Ivan Gončarov, addattamento teatrale di Furio Bordon, Trieste, Teatro Stabile del Friuli-Venezia Giulia, 1991/92). »HeKOTOptie acnercrti u3o6pa»eHua 6yflym,ero b TBopnecTBe O.M. ^ocToeBCKoro u .urepaTypHOM TpaflM^MM 'ropoga' u 'caga'.« CčopnuK naynnux mpydoe. Btm. 393 (1992): 45-53. (MOCKOBCKMM rocygapcTBeHHWM .uHrBucTunecKMM yHUBepeuTeT. Special issue: nepeBog u npo6.eMw pyccKOM ^u.o.oruu. CTaTta nenaTaeTca b coKp. Buge). 1993 »Critiche o complimenti?« Il Piccolo 17.7 (1993). »Dokument za kandidaturo Riccarda Illyja. Odprtost - beseda, ki jo Trst potrebuje.« Primorski dnevnik 12.10. (1993). »Gli slavisti italiani sulla legge Maccanico.« Trieste&oltre I/3 (1993): 296-297. »Il riscatto della memoria. L'autore e l'opera. Note al testo. Bibliografia.« Platonov A. Lo sterro. [Kotlovan, prev. Ivan Verč]. Venezia: Marsilio, 1993. 9-49, 353-379. »Manifest za bodočnost Trsta, (intervju z Ivanom Verčem).« Delo. Glasilo K.P.I. za slovensko narodno manjšino XLV/5. 30.4 (1993): 2. 1994 »Da diversi punti di vista.« Studenci, 7, št. 1 (november 1994): 7-12. »Dualia maiestatis.« Primorski dnevnik 2.10 (1994): 13. 263 Ivan Verč - Selected Bibliography »Iz različnih zornih kotov. Intervju z Ivanom Verčem.« Iskra II/37. 14.10 (1994): 3. »Prispevek k (našemu) prečnemu manifestu.« Pretoki 1 (i994): 33-39. »Roman mit in roman o mitu.« Platonov A. Čevengur. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1994. 425-437. »HeKOTOptie acnercrBi u3o6pa»eHua 6ygym,ero b TBopnecTBe O.M. ^oeToeBeKoro u ^uTeparypHoM TpaflM^MM 'ropoga' u 'caga'.« Slavica tergestina. Studia russica 2 (1994): 197-214. Studia russica. Ur. Laura Rossi, Mila Nortman, Ivan Verč, Slavica tergestina 2, Trieste 1994, str. 218. 1995 »Arpad Kovacs. nepcoHa^BHoe noBecTBOBaHue. nymKUH, Toro^B, ^ocToeBCKUM. Peter Lang, (Slavische Literaturen. Texte und Abhandlungen. Herausgegeben von Wolf Schmid, 7), Frankfurt am Main - Berlin -Bern - New York - Paris - Wien 1994, 232 CTp.« Studia comparata et russica. Trieste: Universita degli Studi. Scuola Superiore di Lingue Moderne per Interpreti e Traduttori, 1995. 199-201. (Slavica tergestina 3). »Dialogi z umetnostjo (v obliki monologa).« Primorski dnevnik 8.10 (1995): 15. »Dileme in različne strateške pozicije slovenske manjšine.« Primorski dnevnik 31.10 (1995). »Intervju z Markom Kravosom.« Sodobnost, XLIII/11-12 (1995): 902-913. 264 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications »Miha Javornik. Evangelij Bulgakova. O ustvarjalnosti Mihaila Afanasjeviča Bulgakova. Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete, (Razprave Filozofske fakultete), Ljubljana 1994, 228 str.« Studia comparata et russica. Trieste: Universita degli Studi. Scuola Superiore di Lingue Moderne per Interpreti e Traduttori, 1995. 199-201. (Slavica tergestina 3). »nymKMH u nnaTOHOB: k Bonpocy o ^opMa^BHwx cooraomeHuax.« Studia Russica Budapestiniensa II-III (1995): 209-222. (Special issue: MaTepua^wi III u IV nymKUHo^orunecKoro Ko^^oKBuyMa). Studia comparata et russica. Ur. Mila Nortman, Ivan Verč, Slavica tergestina 3, Trieste 1995, str. 206. 1996 »Izjava kot vprašanje kulturne evolucije.« Primerjalna književnost 2 (1996): 29-36. »Na rob predloga resolucije o manjšinah.« Delo, Ljubljana, 1996. »O dejanskih vzrokih propadanja Inštituta za slovansko filologijo.« Primorski dnevnik 15.5. (1996). »Žrtev akademskih igric. (O razlogih ukinjanja Inštituta za slovansko filologijo v Trstu).« Primorske novice 24.5 (1996): 24. »Ctux vs. npo3a: ot EaxTuHa k .HoTMaHy u ga^Bme...« Slavica tergestina 4 (1996): 153-162. (Special issue: Hacneg;ue K>.M. ^oTMaHa: HacToarn.ee u 6ygym.ee. Proceedings of The International Symposium. Bergamo, 3-5.11.1994.) 265 Ivan Verč - Selected Bibliography Hacnedue K).M. flomMam: Hacmoxw,ee u 6ydyw,ee. Ur. Patrizia Deotto, Mila Nortman, Maria Chiara Pesenti, Ivan Verč, Slavica tergestina 4, Trieste 1996, str. 322. "Kam plovemo?« Novo Delo I/4. 18.10. (1996): 3. 1997 »Appunti sulla ricezione dell'avanguardia russa in Italia.« Slavia 2/aprile-giugno (1997): 25-33. »Il verbo russo: il problema dell'aspetto. Interventi nel Confronto interlinguistico.« Grammatica. Studi interlinguistici. Padova: Unipress, 1997. 153-161; 268-271; 274; 281; 287; 291. »Racionalizacija v šolstvu in vprašanje kakovostne rasti slovenske šole v Italiji.« Novo Delo 7.6 (1997): 7. »Sproščenost in ustvarjalnost namesto dolžnosti.« Primorski dnevnik 16.2 (1997). »Še o neslavnem odprtju Visoke šole v Narodnem domu.« Primorski dnevnik 17.6. (1997). »BtiCKa3tiBaHMe KaK npo6,eMa Ky,BTypHOM ^BO^ro^MM.« Bahtin in humanistične vede. Zbornik prispevkov z mednarodnega simpozija v Ljubljani, 19.-21. oktobra 1995. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete, 1997. 117-123. Bahtin in humanistične vede. Zbornik prispevkov z mednarodnega simpozija v Ljubljani, 19.-21. oktobra 1995. Ur. Miha Javornik, Marko Juvan, Aleksander Skaza, Jola Škulj, Ivan Verč. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete, 1997. 266 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications 1998 »Iznakažena lepota.« Gledališki list Mestnega gledališča ljubljanskega XLVI. 7 (1998). (Special issue: Nikolaj Koljada. Murlin Murlo. MGL, Ljubljana 1997/1998). »'Moja' Rusija. 'Moa" Poccua« Bilten društva Slovenija-Rusija III.4 (1998): 78-80, 179-182. (Special issue: Slovenija-Rusija. Pregled v preteklost in sedanjost). »Solze za Hekubo (Dostojevski, Turgenjev, Tolstoj).« Slavistična revija 1-2 (1998): 323-330. (Zadravčev zbornik). Studia russica II. Ur. Patrizia Deotto, Mila Nortman, Ivan Verč, Slavica tergestina 6, Trieste 1998, str. 264. 1999 »Neplodnega drevesa se je treba lotiti kar pri koreninah.« Primorski dnevnik 6.5. (1999). »Trieste 2000. Trst 2000.« Proiezione: la Trieste del terzo millennio. Pogledi na Trst v tretjem tisočletju. Trieste: Hammerle, 1999. 84-89. (Gruppo85-Skupina85). Studia slavica. Ur. Patrizia Deotto, Mila Nortman, Ivan Verč, Trieste 1999, Slavica tergestina 7, str. 214. 2000 "La semiosfera inerte. Traduzione e visione del mondo tra est e ovest europeo nella seconda meta del XX secolo.« Tra segni. Ur. Susan Petrilli. Roma: Meltemi, 2000. 199-208. (Collana Athanor X/2). »Cantare la speranza.« Tradurre la canzone dautore. Ur. G. Garzone in L. Schena. Bologna: CLEUB, 2000. 107-114. »Ljubljanska afera Borisa Kobala.« Novo delo 22.4. (2000). »Poesie di Turco e Zagabria.« Prev. Ivan Verč. Primo quaderno di traduzioni. 84, 86, 88, 90-92, 94, UDINE: Campanotto, 2000. 267 Ivan Verč - Selected Bibliography »Prešeren kot književna in kulturna sozvočja.« Primorski dnevnik 20.12 (2000). XydoMecmeeHHbiu meKcm u ^eo-KynbmypHue cmpamu$urnu,uu. Ur. Maria Chiara Pesenti, Patrizia Deotto, Margherita De Michiel, Mila Nortman, Ivan Verč, Slavica tergestina 8, Trieste 2000, str. 394. Ruske pesmi. PyccKue necHu. Izbor iz avtorske in ljudske pesmi. H3Čpambie aemopcKue u mpodrnie necHu (1960-1970). [Prev. Ivan Verč]. »Beseda prevajalca.«. 5-8. Trieste-Trst: Universita degli Studi. Dipartimento di Scienze del Linguaggio, dell'Interpretazione e della Traduzione. In collaborazione con Društvo Slovenija-Rusija e Slovenski center P.E.N., 2000. 2001 »La bellezza deformata di Nikolaj Koljada.« Europa Orientalis XIX/2 (2001): 341-357. »O nacionalnem pesniku.« F. Prešeren - A. S. Puškin (ob 200-letnici njunega rojstva). 0. npemepeH - A.C. nyw.KUH (k 200-nemuw ux poMdeHua). Ur. Miha Javornik. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete, 2001. 25-34. »O slovenščini na Visoki šoli modernih jezikov za tolmače in prevajalce.« Primorski dnevnik, 6. oktobra 2011. »Pisanje-tekst-kultura. Mladi slavisti iz sedmih evropskih univerz na srečanju v Trstu. IV. mednarodno srečanje evropskih šol za podiplomski študij rusistike.« Primorski dnevnik 19.5. (2001). »'Ženitev' ali komedija o svetu, ki ga ni.« Gledališki list Primorskega dramskega gledališča. XLVI. 4 (2001): 23-25 (Special issue: Nikolaj Vasiljevič Gogolj: Ženitev). 268 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications »KopHeBaa Mop^eMa b 'EBreHuu OHeruHe' A.C. nymKMHa (b nnaHe BBipa:®eHua).« Eumepamypoeedenue XXI eem. TeKcmu u KonmeKcmu pyccxoü numemamypu. CaHKT-nepepöypr - MroHxeH: H3g-Bo PyccKoro XpMCTMaHCKoro ryMaHMTapHoro MHCTMTyTa, 2001. 56-73. (Marepua.nBi TpeTBen My^gyHapogHon KOH^epeH^MM Mo^ogwx yneHwx-^u^o^oroB, MroHxeH, 20-24 anpe^a 1999 roga). »HappaTUBHOCTB CTuxoTBopeHua A.C. nymKUHa 'H Bac ^roöu^'. (Em,e pa3 o6 ^TUKe xygo^ecTBeHHoro npou3BegeHua).« Slavica tergestina 9 (2001): 41-60. (Issue: Studia slavica II). »CaT-TexHo^orii y mgroTOBm nepeKnaganiB: pea^BHicTB Ta npono3u^i. npo CAT-TexHo^orii b ^axiB^B.« npoSneMu oceimu. HayKoeo-Memodmnuü 36ipnuK 26 (KuiB 2001): 20-23. Studia slavica II. Ur. Margherita De Michiel, Patrizia Deotto, Mila Nortman, Ivan Verč, Slavica tergestina 9, Trieste 2001, str. 330. 2002 »Il morfema lessicale nell'Evgenij Onegin di A.S. Puškin (per una ricerca sul piano dell'espressione).« Studi e scritti in memoria di Marzio Marzaduri. Ur. G. Pagani-Cesa in Ol'ga Obuchova. Padova: CLEUP, 2002. 443-456. »Lady Macbeth na preži.« Gledališki list Primorskega dramskega gledališča XLVII/4 (2002): 15-18. (Special issue: Anton Pavlovič Čehov: Tri sestre. PDG, Nova Gorica). 269 Ivan Verč - Selected Bibliography »O historičnem diskurzu.« Historizem v raziskovanju slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana: Center za slovenščino kot drugi/tuji jezik pri Oddelku za slovanske jezike in književnosti Filozofske fakultete, 2002. 675-685. (Obdobja 18). »Skromna želja gospoda Ivanova.« Gledališki list Mestnega gledališča ljubljanskega XLIII/i (2002): 6-15. (Special issue: Anton Pavlovič Čehov: Ivanov. MGL, Ljubljana). »B 3am,MTy cy6iBercra. (HTuaa no.a PuKepa).« Slavica tergestina 10 (2002): 21-38. (Special issue: ^MTepaTypoBegeHMe XXI BeKa. nucBMo - TeKCT -Ky.BTypa. MarepMa.Bi Me»gyHap0flH0M KOH^epeHu,MM M0^0gwx yneHwx-^M.o.oroB). »O Ha^MOHa.BHOM no^re.« CnaerncKuu anbManax 2001. Moskva: Hhapmk, 2002. 373-382. Puškin, Aleksandr Sergeevič. Prev. Mile Klopčič. Ur. Ivan Verč. Mladinska knjiga 2002 (Zbirka Mojstri lirike). nucbMO - TeKcm - Kynbmypa. Mamepuanu Memdynapodnou Kon§epenu,uu Monodbix y^eHux-^unono^oe. Ur. Margherita De Michiel, Patrizia Deotto, Mila Nortman, Ivan Verč, Slavica tergestina 10, Trieste 2002, str. 352. 2003 »A proposito di poeti nazionali.« Ricerche slavistiche. Nuova serie XLVII/1 (2003): 81-94. (Special issue: Atti del convegno internazionale: Prešerniana. Dalla lira di France Prešeren: armonie letterarie e culturali tra Slovenia, Italia ed Europa. Ur. Janja Jerkov in Miran Košuta). 270 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications »Subjekt izjave kot predmet raziskovanja književnosti.« Kako pisati literarno zgodovino danes? Ur. Darko Dolinar in Marko Juvan. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, 2003. 213-226. »HeKOTOptie acnercrti KOMnBMTepHoro o6ecneneHMa yne6Horo npo^cca nogroTOBKM nepeBOflHMKOB (c^e^Ma.M3a^Ma - pyccKMM 33bik).« Teachings and Learning Languages and Translation. Ur. Gerarld Parks. Trieste: Universita degli Studi. Dipartimento di Scienze del linguaggio, dell'interpretazione e della traduzione, 2003. 225-232. (Miscellanea n. 5). 2004 »Etica e poetica in Puškin.« Aleksandr Sergeevič Puškin nel 2° centenario della nascita. Atti del Convegno Internazionale. Milano3-4 giugno 1999. Incontro di studio n. 21. Milano: Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere, 2004. 65-76. »O bedakih, izobražencih in razumnikih.« Gledališki list Mestnega gledališča ljubljanskega LIII/8 (2004): 25-30. (Special issue: Aleksander Sergejevič Gribojedov. Gorje pametnemu. MGL, Ljubljana). »Ob odkritju spominske plošče na pročelju Narodnega doma.« Primorski dnevnik 11.12. (2004). (Delno objavljeno v italijanščini. Il Piccolo 11.12.2004). »Osservazioni sul realismo.« Per Rossana Platone. Contributi sulla letteratura russa tra Ottocento e Novecento. Ur. Damiano Rebecchini in Laura Rossi. Milano: Massimo Valdina Editore, 2004. 3-27. (Atti della giornata di studio svoltasi il 14 novembre 2001 presso l'Universita degli Studi di Milano). 271 Ivan Verč - Selected Bibliography »Prodijev obisk v Narodnem domu.« Primorski dnevnik 14.4. (2004). »San Pietroburgo: la citta e la memoria.« Pietroburgo capitale della cultura europea. Ur. Antonella DAmelia. Salerno: Universita degli Studi di Salerno. Dipartimento di studi linguistici e letterari, 2004. 13-26 [401-402: Abstract in Russian]. (Collana di Europa Orientalis). »Slovenski pozdrav prof. Ivana Verča včeraj v Narodnem domu.« Primorski dnevnik 1.5. (2004). »BcrynMTenbHoe caobo. Kovacs Arpad hatvaneves. Apnagy KoBany mecTbgecaT TOT. Cy6ibercr u Mcropna ^MTepaTypw (BBOflHHe 3aMeTKu).« A szo elete. Tanulmanyok a hatvaneves Kovacs Arpad tiszteletere. Ur. Jerzy Faryno, Thomka Beata, Ivan Verč. Budapest: Argumentum, 2004. 9-10, 446-454. »O Ha^MOHa^bHOM nosTe.« Slavica tergestina 11-12 (2004): 47-66. (Issue: Studia slavica III). »O6 STMKe aBTopa.« Slavica tergestina 11-12 (2004): 353-358. (Issue: Studia slavica III). A szo elete. Tanulmanyok a hatvaneves Kovacs Arpad tiszteletere. Ur. Jerzy Faryno, Thomka Beata, Ivan Verč. Budapest: Argumentum, 2004. Studia slavica III. Ur. Marija Mitrovic, Mila Nortman, Ivan Verč, Slavica tergestina 11-12, Trieste 2004, str. 388. 2005 »Dialoške prvine Lotmanove strukturalne poetike.« Slavistična revija 3 (2005): 317-329. 272 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications 2006 »Alla ricerca di uno statuto smarrito.« Nei territori della slavistica. Percorsi e intersezioni scritti per Danilo Cavaion. Ur. Cinzia De Lotto in Adalgisa Mingati. Padova: Unipress, 2006. 415-429. »Ko je bila beseda konj.« Gledališki list Mestnega gledališča ljubljanskega LVII/4 (2006): 23-25. (Special issue: Mihail A. Bulgakov, Miha Javornik. Mojster in Margareta / Margareta in Mojster. MGL, Ljubljana). »L'incrinarsi dell'assoluto. Na prelomu absolutnosti.« Trst: umetnost in glasba ob meji v dvajsetih in tridesetih letih XX. stoletja. Trieste: arte e musica di frontiera negli anni Venti e Trenta del XX secolo. Trst-Trieste-Ljubljana: Glasbena matica-ZRC SAZU, 2006. 17-26; 27-35. »O etiki in o njenem prevajanju v jezik književnosti. On Ethics and Its Translation into the Language of Literature.« Primerjalna književnost 2006: 169-178, 353363. (Special issue: Teoretsko-literarni hibridi: o dialogu literature in teorije. Hybridizing Theory and Literature: On the Dialogue between Theory and Literature. Ur. Marko Juvan in Jelka Kernev Štrajn). »Sprava: Kako naprej, se sploh da?« Novi glas 2.11 (2006): 3. »The Subject of an Utterance as an Object of Study of Literary History.« Writing Literary History. Selected Perspectives from Central Europe. Ur. Darko Dolinar in Marko Juvan. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH, 2006. 89-102. »Utopija prehojene poti. (Gradbena jama in Morje mladosti Andreja Platonova).« Slavistična revija 4 (2006): 793-808. 273 Ivan Verč - Selected Bibliography »HeKOTopbie acnercra 3araaBMM xygo^ecTBeHHwx npou3BegeHMM b pyccKOM nuTepaType XIX BeKa.« Studi in ricordo di Carmen Sánchez Montero. II. Ur. Graziano Benelli in Giampaolo Tonini. Trieste: Universita degli Studi di Trieste. Scuola Superiore di Lingue Moderne per Interpreti e Traduttori. Dipartimento di Scienze del Linguaggio, dell'Interpretazione e della Traduzione, 2006. 543-555. 2007 »Osebno sporočilo.« Novi glas 22.2 (2007): 2. »Razmišljanja o demokratski stranki.« Novo delo 17.3. (2007): 2. »Utopija prehojene poti.« Andrej Platonov. Morje mladosti. Ljubljana: Študentska založba - Beletrina, 2007. 242-265. Ocnoeu npuMewHm mexHOROZuu KOMnbwmepHux nepeeodoe. I. (soavtor A. Voronova.) Dipartimento di Scienze del linguaggio, dell'interpretazione e della traduzione, Trieste, Universita degli Studi, 2007, str. 292. 2008 »'Bedni ljudje' F.M. Dostojevskega in vprašanje realizma.« Literatura 203-204 (2008): 140-154. »Essere e sloveno.« Laltra anima di Trieste. Saggi, racconti, testimonianze, poesie. Ur. Marija Pirjevec, Trieste: Mladika, 2008. 480-484. »Insegnare la letteratura: formazione, istruzione e intelligibilita dell'insegnamento letterario.« Imparare ad imparare. Imparare ad insegnare. Parole di insegnanti ad uso di studenti. Ur. Flora de Giovanni in Bruna Di Sabato, Napoli, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 2008. 203-219. 274 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications »Vzhodno od vzhoda. Ivan Verč o koreninah povezanosti med Rusijo in Srbijo, o sodobni Rusiji in o strahu pred 'vzhodnim Rimom'«. Intervju z Ivanom Verčem (Peter Verč), Primorske novice, 15.2.2008, str. 18. 2010 »Čehov in 'cikcaki bodočnosti'«. Gledališki list SNG, Nova Gorica, LIV (2010), 4, str. 5-12. »Poštevanke ne zna v italijanščini. Vse več Italijanov bi se učilo slovensko. Pljuča Slovenije.« Pogledi. Umetnost. Kultura. Družba, letnik 1, št. 8/9 (14.7.2010), str. 18-19. »06 ^TMKe M no^TMKe B TBopnecrae A.C. nymKMHa.« nyrnxuH u epeMn. H3gaTe.BCTBO ToMCKoro yHMBepcuTeTa, Tomck (Russian Federation): Tomck 2010. 111-122. ISBN: 978-5-7511-1940-9. Razumevanje jezikov književnosti. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC -ZRC SAZU, 2010 (Zbirka Studia litteraria), str. 182. 2011 »Confine orientale: di linee, aree e volumi.« Between, Italia, 1, mag. 2011. Glej: http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/ between/article/view/90/ 60 »Confine orientale: di linee, aree e volumi.« Guglielmi M., Pala M. (eds.). Frontiere. Confini. Limiti. Roma: Armando Editore, 2011. 191-209. »In memoria Di Francesco Straniero Sergio. In Memory Of Francesco Straniero Sergio.« The Interpreters' Newletter 16 (2011): VII-X. 275 Ivan Verč - Selected Bibliography »Una nota su 'fiction' e dintorni.« Il territorio della parola russa. Immagini. Salerno: Vereja Edizioni (Collana di Europa Orientalis), 2011. 215-220. »Pea^M3M KaK ^MTepaTypa paanunua. ,e(KOH)crpy^Ma.« '06pa3 Mupa e cnoee ñenenuü'. CčopnuK e uecmb 70-nemuñ npofyeccopa Emu &apbino. Instytut Filologii Polskiej i Lingwistiki Stosowanej Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczo-Humanistycznego w Siedlcach, Siedlce 2011. 201-209, 635-636. 2012 »Sankt Peterburg in oblikovanje spomina.« Slavica tergestina. 2012. 13:198-219. 2013 »I Due Čechov di Vladimir Majakovskij.« Cronotopi slavi. Studi in onore di Marija Mitrovic. Ur. Persida Lazarevic Di Giacomo in Sanja Roic. Firenze: Firenze University Press, 2013, (Biblioteca di studi slavistici). 207-215. 2014 »Dostoevskij e il teatro delle rappresentazioni.« Paralleli: Studi di letteratura e cultura russa per Antonella DAmelia. International Printing Srl Editore, Salerno 2014. 135-142. »Iz gradiva o mentorskem delu prof. dr. Aleksandra Skaze (Roman Tat Leonida Leonova).« Slavistična revija 62/4 (2014): 483-493. »Level az irodalomtudománynak hasznos voltáról.« Filológiai kozlony LX/3 (2014): 289-295. »O Skupini 85.« Primorski dnevnik. 30.10.2014. 276 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications »nucbMO o no,nb3e ,MTepaTypoBeg,eHMa.« Esemeny es kolteszet. Tanulmanyok Kovacs Arpad hetvenedik szuletesnapjara. Ur. Szitar Katalin, Molnar Angelika in dr. Veszprem: Pannon Egyetem, 2014: 16-21. 2015 »Aspetti dell'oltretomba nella cultura russa precristiana.« Sguardi sull'aldila nelle culture antiche e moderne. Ur. F. Crevatin. Trieste: EUT, 2015: 47-63. »Spomin na brata.« Primorski dnevnik. 25. aprila 2015. 2016 »Jurij Tinjanov: o jeziku poezije. (Poskus literarnoteoretske pripovedi). Spremna študija.« Tinajnov Ju. N. Vprašanje pesniškegajezika. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis. 2016: 155-178. »O spominu. O naMaTu.« Nad pregradami3. noeepx Sapbepoe 3. Jubilejna številka ob dvajsetletnici Društva Slovenija - Rusija in stoletnici Ruske kapelice pod Vršičem, Ljubljana: Društvo Slovenija - Rusija, 2016. 128-134. »Še pomnite Raskolnikova?« Gledališki list Mini teatra Slovenskega narodnega gledališča LXI/8 (2016): 13-19. (Special issue: Ljudmila Razumovska. Draga Jelena Sergejevna. SNG, Nova Gorica). »O HbeM KeH03uce ugeT penb?« Narratorium, 2016 1 (9). http://narratorium.rggu.ru/article.html?id=2635299 Lo sloveno in tasca = Žepna slovenščina. Ur. Mojca Nidorfer Šiškovič... Ivan Verč [in dr.]. Universita degli studi di Trieste, Dipartimento di scienze giuridiche, del linguaggio, dell'Interpretazione e della traduzione. Ljubljana : Casa editrice Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, Ljubljana 2016. 277 Ivan Verč - Selected Bibliography Verifiche. Preverjanja. npoeepKU. Trieste-Trst: EUT - ZTT-EST, 2016. Vol. I. Analisi del testo. Analiza besedila. AHa.M3 TeKCTa, str. 380. Verifiche. Preverjanja. npoeepKU. Trieste-Trst: EUT - ZTT-EST, 2016. Vol. II. La letteratura della differenza. Književnost razlike. ^MTepaTypa pa3.MHMa, str. 382. Verifiche. Preverjanja. npoeepKU. Trieste-Trst: EUT - ZTT-EST, 2016. Vol. III. Scritti di teoria della letteratura. Scritti sull'etica. O literarni teoriji. O etiki. O Teopuu .MTepaTypw. O6 ^TMKe, str. 402. Verifiche. Preverjanja. npoeepKU. Trieste-Trst: EUT - ZTT-EST, 2016. Vol. IV. Cultura. Insegnamento. Teatro. Kultura. Poučevanje. Gledališče. Ky.BTypa. npenogaBaHue. TeaTp, str. 412. Kopneeue MopfieMU e EezeuUU OnezUne A.C. nyw.KUHa. Tom I: BcTynMTe.BHoe COBO. C.OBapB KopHeBwx Mop^eM A-.fi, CTp. 302. TOM II: C.OBapB KopHeBBix Mop^eM M-H, CTp. 306. Tom III: npu.o^eHMa, CTp. 206. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Universita di Trieste, 2016. On-line: http://hdl.handle.net/10077/8545 2017 »O vprašanju jezika v romanu 'Nož in jabolko' Ivanke Hergold.« Ženska literarna ustvarjalnost na Primorskem. Ur. Marija Pirjevec. Trst: Mladika - Slavistično društvo Trst-Gorica-Videm, 2017. 59-68. 278 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 23 (2019/II) - Echoes of Verifications 2018 »Kaj pa vnukinje Lepe Vide?« Mladika 2018, 1: 4-10. »Odvečni ljudje.« Gledališki list Slovenskega ljudskega gledališča Celje, letnik 67, sezona 2017/18, št. 7 (Nebojša Pop-Tasic. Onjegin. Po motivih romana Jevgenij Onjegin Aleksandra Sergejeviča Puškina), Celje 2018. 27-36. »Ritorno alla filologia. Return to Philology.« Slavica Tergestina 20/I (2018): 276-308. 279 slavica TERgestina volumes usually focus on a particular theme or concept. Most of the articles published so far deal with the cultural realm of the Slavic world from the perspective of modern semiotic and cultural methodological approaches, but the journal remains open to other approaches and methodologies. The theme of the upcoming volume along with detailed descriptions of the submission deadlines and the peer review process can be found on our website at www.slavica-ter.org. All published articles are also available on-line, both on the journal website and in the University of Trieste web publication system at www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/handle/10077/2204. slavica TERgestina is indexed in The European Reference Index for the Humanities (erih plus). 9771592029007 977159202900723