In the tragic play Hamlet, written by William Shakespeare, one of the most common themes found throughout the story’s plot is the theme of love. Shakespeare interlaces many layers of thematic love through the complex relationships of Hamlet; primarily between Hamlet and Ophelia. From Act one until the final scene of the play, Hamlet struggles with the decision to kill Claudius while he concurrently tries to comprehend the chaos surrounding him.

As the story unfolds and the tensions build between Hamlet and his loved ones, Hamlet’s relationship to Ophelia is profoundly impacted.

Ophelia is the daughter of Polonius, one of King Claudius\’ closest friends. She is described as a beautiful young woman, and she is also the love interest of the main character in the story Hamlet. Her love for Hamlet and her loyalty to her father creates friction and leads to tragedy in Ophelia\’s life.

Ophelia\’s love for Hamlet is mentioned very early in the play when she is with her brother, Laertes, and her father, Polonius. . The brother warns her to be careful since Hamlet\’s motive to be with her are not out of love, but is \”a violet in the youth of primy nature, forward, not permanent, sweet, not lasting, the perfume and suppliance of a minute,\”

Hamlet confesses that he loved her, but then goes on to say that he never loved
her. This could be due to the fact that Hamlet knew his conversation with Ophelia was being
watched which explains the confusion on whether he loved her or not. Additionally, in the love
letter he wrote for her, Hamlet wrote “never doubt I love” (Shakespeare II 127).

He tells her that
among everything else around, her that may not be true, his love for her is real. This is the one time before Ophelia’s death that Hamlet reveals his true feelings. This could be due to the fact that, once Ophelia received the letter, she gave it to her father. Hamlet did not trust Polonius, and from that moment on, Hamlet knew he had to hide his love for Ophelia and act mad to protect her.

According to his plan, Hamlet begins to act strangely. He rejects Ophelia, while Claudius and Polonius, the royal attendant, spy on him. They had hoped to find the reason for Hamlet\’s sudden change in behavior but could not. Claudius summons Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, old friends of Hamlet to find out what\’s got into him. Their arrival coincides with a group of travelling actors that Hamlet happens to know well. Hamlet writes a play which includes scenes that mimic the murder of Hamlet\’s father. During rehearsal, Hamlet and the actors plot to present Hamlet\’s play before the King and Queen.

Unlike Laertes, Polonius demands that she must stop dating Hamlet at once. He cares about his own reputation more than the emotions of his daughter, and he also wants to have the most power over her. If she and Hamlet were to wed, he would lose the power he has over her, which is unacceptable in his eyes. After Ophelia obeys her father, Hamlet appears at her room in a complete mess. The state that he is in frightens her, and mentions what happens to her father. Polonius assumes that Ophelia’s rejection has driven Hamlet insane. This is the beginning of Polonius obsession to discover if Hamlet is really insane due to his daughter’s rejection, or if it due to a different cause.

The obsession that Polonius continues to have for the discover of the source of Hamlet’s insanity drives him to his death, which further induces Ophelia’s drowning. Being extremely nosy, he once again hides to eavesdrop on Hamlet’s conversation, this time with Hamlet’s mother in the queen’s chamber. After Gertrude feels threatened by Hamlet’s aggression and screams, Polonius makes a sound behind the curtain, in turn shocking Hamlet. Then Hamlet yells, “How now, a rat? Dead for ducat, dead” and stabs Polonius through the curtains, killing him (3.4 29).

Polonius obsession with their relationship causes his own death. Unfortunately, his death drives Ophelia insane. She loses the love of her life, her brother is far away in Paris so she has no one to go to anymore, and now her father perishes. Being driven over the edge, she does not notice that falls into a large pool of water, and before long, \”her garments, heavy with their drink, pulled the poor wretch from her melodious lay to muddy death\” (4.7 206-208). The significance of Ophelia and Hamlet\’s relationship is all tied together by Laertes\’s mark for vengeance.

Act V i. is the first scene since Polonius\’s death that the two characters are in each other\’s presence. Overcome with grief, Hamlet cries, \” I loved Ophelia: forty thousand brothers could not, with all their quantity of love make up my sum\” (5.1.270-72). When he sees Laertes in the grave, he becomes jealous and angry, so they wrestle. Laertes was not prepared to kill Hamlet there and then, but it is hinted that he will do so in the next scene.

Hamlet\’s relationship may indirectly lead up to his death. Hamlet and Ophelia have a relationship that is quite significant to Hamlet as a whole. Their relationship in the past has been filled with many sexual endeavors but once the play starts, it begins its downfall, affecting multiple characters down the line.

Hugo began writing the novel The Cathedral of Our Lady of Paris two days before the Revolution – July 25, 1830, ending in early February 1831.

He sees the most expressive embodiment of the turning point depicted in the novel in the cathedral as a monument of architecture, in which the old forms, marked by the inviolability of dogmatic architectural traditions, began to be combined with new forms reflecting the origin and growth of opposition to the outdated traditions. The cathedral is not only the place in which, or in the immediate vicinity of, most of the novel’s action takes place. And not just his compositional center, which is drawn to him by all the story lines of the novel. In the third book and in the second chapter of the fifth book, which gives a detailed description of the architecture of medieval Paris, the cathedral grows to a majestic symbol that embodies the inexhaustible talent of the French people in the article about Quentin Dorward, defining life as a moody drama in which the well mixed and the evil, the beautiful and the ugly, Hugo, in the preface to Cromwell, added to this that the beautiful in the neighborhood of the ugly becomes purer and grander. It is in such a romantic contrast to Quasimodo, Guduli, Claude that the charming Esmeralda is portrayed. But despite all the external contradictions between her and Quasimodo, they have much in common, not only because of the romantic coincidence that Quasimodo once found himself in the cradle of Agnes-Esmeralda. If a gifted musician has died in it, Esmeralda is the most complete embodiment of folk talent, which is evident both in her dances and in her “witchcraft” with Jali’s goat. Like Quasimodo, she is capable of self-love, a passion that grew out of boundless gratitude (to Phenom Rothmaster). The girl’s deep humanity makes her a savior not only to Quasimodo, despite his unattractive role in the earlier events of her life, but also to the playwright Pierre Grengoir, “Fate and society were equally unjust to her” as well as to Quasimodo.

The spirit of disobedience and protest inherent in Esmeralda and the revived Quasimodo, and to some extent Guduli, is most fully felt in the collective image of the inhabitants of the Court of Wonders – the Paris plebs, whose queen is Esmeralda, and the short-time ruler, Quasimodo, – such was the people “, which at that time was no different than the” good Parisian commoners “and medieval sloth students like Jean Frollo. The author does not modernize and, moreover, does not idealize the medieval lower classes: they are cruel and superstitious, as in the quasimodo punishment scene, merciful and indifferent, as evidenced by Grengoir’s adventures in the Court of Wonders. This is as natural a consequence of the oppressed and disenfranchised situation of the medieval people as its anger against the oppressors, which has been felt since the first pages of the novel – in the mass scene waiting for the beginning of the mystery in honor of the Flemish ambassadors.

The novel constantly draws attention to the contrast between the moods of the Paris lower classes and the wealthy bourgeois depicted, as a rule, quite ironically. In the colorful, active social milieu of the novel, the immature French bourgeoisie plays an episodic role precisely because it is already detached from the lower reaches, and has not yet grown up to active anti-feudal positions.

The Cathedral of Our Lady of Paris becomes the pinnacle of unconditional revelation and condemnation of not only the church or the nobility, but also of all the feudal-medieval superstructure, many of which Hugo sees in France in his day. In particular, among the Parisian gendarmerie, which – “sorts out” the same methods as the Paris judges depicted in the novel; in a prison of the nineteenth century, where medieval traditions, ironically observed by the writer, are carefully preserved.

Good and evil in the novel, despite all the idealistic philosophical and historical concept of Hugo and the romantic exceptionality of characters and situations, has a very precise class address and quite specific socio-professional traits, which are associated with the romantic typification of the central images of the novel. And the background images, characters and circumstances of the historical background and especially the mass scenes are depicted in such a way that the means of the romantic-exceptional interact with the means of life, and sometimes give way to the latter. This is typical of the images of King, Coppenol, Jean, Phebe, and many episodic characters, such as the three mother-in-law, from whose conversations we learn about the history of Gudula.

All ideas for the artistic content of the work is confirmed by Hugo’s clearly articulated in the period of work on the novel, the conclusion reached by the writer under the influence of revolutionary events of this time: “Kings reign today, the people belong tomorrow.”

So we see that by creating pictures of the novel and giving them certain features of the hero’s behavior, the author tries to show that the life of the time is as colorful and special, colorful and fleeting as a carnival.

1. Introduction

 

Jen Eyre’s novel attracted and amazed readers with the image of the protagonist, a brave and pure girl who alone struggles hard for her existence and for her human dignity.

The novel was an important milestone in the history of the fight for women’s equality. This is not yet political equality – even charters did not demand suffrage for women – but equality of a woman and her husband in work and family. In staging the women’s issue and in her own work, Charlotte Bronte was close to the French writer Georges Sand, whose famous novel Consuelo (1842) was very fond of Charlotte Bronte.

Jen Eyre is a passionate and strong-willed character, a natural protester against all oppression. As a child, she openly rebels against her rich and hypocritical educator and her cruel, spoiled son. At the shelter, in a conversation with the gentle and patient Ellen Burns, she expresses the need for resistance: “When we are beaten for no reason, we must respond with a blow to the blow – otherwise, and cannot be – with such force that it will forever hurt people. beat us! »

No, it is not Christian morality that the poor governess, the daughter of a priest, preached in her book! Not surprisingly, the novel “Jen Eyre” caused outrage in reaction circles. A review published in the Quarterly Review (1848) said: “Jen Eyre is proud, and therefore extremely grateful; God was pleased to make her a lonely and defenseless orphan, and yet she does not thank anyone – neither friends nor the leaders of her helpless youth – for clothing and food, for care and upbringing. Jen Eyre’s autobiography is a completely anti-Christian work. It is taken up by the harness against the comfort of the rich and the deprivation of the poor. ” Then the same author of the review (it was some Miss Rigby) will conclude that the novel “Jen Eyre” is generated by the same rebellious spirit that manifested in Chartism.

2. The theme of the novel “Jen Air”

 

Jen Eyre’s novel is Charlotte Bronte’s finest work, for in it the writer was fortunate enough to reveal, through her aesthetic system, her understanding of the human ideal.

Charlotte Bronte has repeatedly exchanged views and observations on literature with critic J. Lewis. He tried to channel the talent of the writer to full-length descriptions, to the statement that caught the eye. And the writer does not want to create “accurate daguerreotype portraits of ordinary people”, does not want to paint a fenced off life garden, it is attracted by the wind of life, the vast expanses where a person breathes on full breasts. She considers it necessary, before writing about any phenomena, “to study them in a long and personal experience”, “to deeply and comprehensively learn about their nature and to truly feel the evil that they carry with them.” But this is just one of the conditions for successful creativity, it is its precondition. Starting from personal experience, the writer, according to Bronte, should generalize, typify, obeying the creative imagination.

“You advise me …” she wrote in a letter to J. Lewis, “not to leave a firm ground for my own experience, because I become weaker as I enter the realm of the fictional, and because, as you say,” shared experience is continued interest for all people. ” I also feel that this is true, but, dear sir, is not each person’s experience something very limited? And if the writer resorts only to his own experience, does he not run the risk of repeating himself, will he not turn into an egocentric? In addition, imagination is a powerful restless gift that demands that it be heard and used. ”

It is the creative credo of Charlotte Bronte, the credo of the real-life writer, and was most fully embodied in Jen Eyre’s novel. With the image of Jen Eyre in English literature has entered a new heroine – a woman worker.

Writers are close to the theme and idea of ​​this novel, and the character of the protagonist gives ample opportunity to translate creative ideas.

Jen Eyre is a poor girl, small and unobtrusive, who does not even remember her parents, her wanderings make it possible for the writer to show outside and inside the various layers of society and criticize the English bourgeoisie.

For ten years, Jen lived in the home of her rich cousin Mrs. Reed. The girl was taught to despise poverty. The children who have grown rich, thanks to the education they are given, “do not understand that poverty can be caring, hard working, honest – in their imagination, this word will only knit with rags, poor food, cold chimney, rude customs. and disgusting defects. ” Poverty seemed humiliating to Jane.

But what does a little girl find among the rich, who seemingly must be both good and kind and sincere? Her aunt is a soulless woman, she cannot understand a child who does not look like her own child-poor children, and therefore hates her openly, humiliates and punishes her mercilessly, and then happily delivers to an orphanage. Even dying, she does not give up her hatred, makes no attempt to atone for the great evil that Jen did.

From the aunt’s house, Reed Jen arrives at the Law School, run by Mr Brocklherst (his prototype was curated by Cavan-Bridge Mr Wilson), similar to a black column: his impression was “straight, thin, black,” “face” it’s like a stone mask. ” The “humanity” he manages when arranging at the Law School is rather strange: he tries to teach girls courageously to endure earthly suffering. After all, they are trained in the role of governess-servants of wealthy families, and the goal set by the caregiver is to “teach them endurance, patience and self-denial.” It is no wonder, then, that with such principles of education, the first epidemic has done a terrible job in Loved …

But even children from wealthy families also do not know happiness, false ideas of parents, moral norms of bourgeois society cripple life.

Mrs. Reed’s children grow up worthless and selfish. Losing and drinking, having chosen his mother and sisters, he shortens his age, John. Dry, cold, selfish becomes Eliza. The only thing Georgian is capable of and dreams of is getting married. The sisters hate each other, not even a drop of heat is in them for a dying mother.

For his entire life, Edward Rochester’s deeply unhappy man made his father. The old man “was a voracious mischief … he firmly decided not to divide his estate”, so the whole legacy was to go to his eldest son. And the younger, Edward, was married to money, without even telling him that his fiance was inevitable by the madness …

In Thornfield, John observes a brilliant secular society that dresses in his master’s living room. But even here, the outside gloss lies cold calculation, devastation and soullessness. “They were smiling, laughing – and they were indifferent to me,” Jen recalls. “The candles gave much more radiance than their smile; the ringing of the bell spoke more than their laughter. ” The Blanche Ingram beauty does not seem jealous of Jen because she “was very showy, but lacked naturalness; she was good, and she received a brilliant education, but her mind was poor and her heart was callous. Nothing grew or bloomed on this soil, and therefore could not please you with its fresh fruits. She was not good; she did not feel anything about her, she repeated the loud phrases from the books and never expressed – because she did not have them – her own thoughts. She preached high feelings, but knew neither sympathy nor pity, but tenderness and truth were alien to her. ”

No wonder Mr Thornefield Hall can find a woman worthy of genuine love, neither among the English ladies, nor among the French countess, nor among the Italian Signor, nor among the German Baronesses.
And it is only in the poor, small, ugly governess that he finds the rare qualities he sought in vain among the rich beauties all his life. What is so unusual about Edward Fairfax Rochester, a rich man and gentleman of ancient descent, in poor governess Jen Eyre? Sincerity, and a lively mind, and a good temper, and the artistry of nature, are all very differentiating John from worldly women, but that is not the point. The most important thing for Rochester is that he sees a girl as an equal person. Human dignity, independence, self-love – that’s what attracts him most to Jen.

Even in her childhood, little Jen rebelled against the humble acceptance of suffering and injustice, against the philosophy of non-resistance. It calls for a passionate call for the protection of the human right to defend its dignity. “If it is always good to put up with the one who is bothering you and offending you, evil people will be able to do whatever they want; they will fear no one, change their temper, and will become increasingly evil. When we get hit, we have to hit, too – I stand for it – and then do our best so that no one else wants to beat us. ” And these beliefs, Jen strongly defends her whole life.

3. The idea of ​​equality of people in the novel Jane Eyre

 

The spirit of protest and independence is also evident in Jen Eyre’s relationship with a loved one. Exhausted by the strange, quirky game that her master entails, Jen is, in fact, the first to tell him about her love. It was unheard of, unacceptable in a Victorian novel!

It is Jen’s explanation of love that takes on the character of a bold declaration of equality. “Do you think that I am an automaton, a car of indifference? .. I have the same soul as yours, and the same heart … I am talking to you now, neglecting customs and conventions and even throwing away all the earthly …”

Becoming the bride of a loved one, on top of happiness, Jen Eyre retains self-control and sobriety. She stands guard of her independence, she is frightened by the transformation into a slave, into a man’s toy. She continues to teach his daughter lessons, rejects the bridegroom’s gorgeous gifts, persistently reminds him that she is poor and ugly (yes, Jen Eyre is ugly – it was also a novelty for an English Victorian novel).

Upon learning that her beloved married, Jen leaves his house and wanders without money on the highways. She has to spend the night in a field, under a haystack. Nobody lets her under the roof, she can’t get bread even in exchange for the expensive scarf. In the land of the unemployed and the homeless, every poor man causes suspicion of thievery in satiated people and condemns to starvation.

The modern reader may be surprised by Jen Eyre’s behavior. After all, Mr. Rochester is bound by marriage ties to a violent madman and, according to English laws, cannot part with her. His unhappiness and his genuine love for Jen would have to break her resistance. He invites her to go with him to Italy, where nobody knows them, and to live happily with him abroad until the end of the day. He will continue to take care of his sick wife. What prevents an endlessly loving Jen from accepting his offer?

Of course, Charlotte Bronte remains the daughter of her century, when any informal union was considered a shame and a crime. But the decision of her heroine is psychologically clear: Jen Eyre is proud and pure in nature; the very idea that all life will have to lie, all life to be away from home, depending on the slightest whim of a despotic and inflammatory (albeit beloved) person, is unbearable for her. And she prefers poverty and separation.

The novel’s extraordinary success was also explained by the courage with which the writer portrays a sense of love; even before writers-men of that era (Dickens and Thackeray) were not taken to such an image. All the more unexpected for the English public was the voice of genuine passion that erupted on the pages of a novel written by a woman, a provincial governess. Rochester is a passion that sweeps all the obstacles, and Jen is a passion that has come to grips with a heightened sense of debt.

The plot of the novel is linked to a long romantic tradition: it is not very believable, although this conceals a kind of charm. Affected reading of Gothic novels and works of romantics. Rochester Castle hiding a dark mystery, the sudden appearance of a horrible woman, a broken wedding, a heroine’s rich inheritance, a fire in which Rochester’s wife dies and his castle is, finally, a happy ending – all in all the canons of an exciting, romantic romance. The image of Rochester is clearly felt byronic features.

But Charlotte Bronte remains realistic at the most important point – in the true and typical portrayal of the social environment, social relations and human characters. The priest’s daughter, she did not stop before the murderous satire for the clergy. The most reflective and grotesque image in the novel is Brocklhurst the priest, the “trustee” and, in fact, the killer of orphan girls at the Law School. Idealized images of priests, meek and distant, flooded with Victorian literature, rejected by Charlotte Bronte, who knew the clerical environment well. In it, she met two types of priests – strict fanatics and family despots (such was her father) and hypocrites who cover their devotional phrases with their devotion to earthly goods. Both of these types are inferred in her novel.

The young pastor of St. John is endowed with beauty and virtue, loyalty to religious duty; but, in fact, it is a pedant and fanatic who sacrifices all living emotions and human relationships. The writer subtly observes even the tinge of dry selfish calculation in the ideals and demands of St. John, in his reflections on the highest Christian debt: by offering Jen Aire marriage without love and joint missionary activity in India, he seeks to acquire humble and humble obedience. No wonder Jen Eyre responds to his angry response: she saw and experienced true love herself and, though running away from her, is now safe from the cold dogmas that humiliate human feelings. Terrestrial passion and earthly happiness attract her, not a self-destructive missionary service. In a fit of anger, she tells St. John that he neglects both himself and his love. How courageous did it take a young writer, the daughter of a pastor, to openly rebel against the religious ideals of self-denial, against the traditional (and at the core of her chauvinistic) glorification of British missionary work!

Equally ruthless Charlotte Bronte and to any manifestation of accumulation, adoration for money. The horrifying story of a marriage that turned into Mr. Rochester into a hopeless tragedy: first, in his youth, he fell victim to a nasty bargaining agreement between two wealthy families who hid his fiancee’s heartfelt illness; then he finds himself tied for life to a terminally ill, mixed woman. The writer here opposes the English state laws on marriage, begins a dispute that will continue such colossi as Galsworthy and Shaw.

The ending of the novel, when Jen Eyre returns to the crippled, blind, impoverished Mr. Rochester and brings him help and solace, turns into a kind of apotheosis of the heroine. The light of Jen Eyre’s sacrificial service to a loved one, as well as the writer’s ability to convey the passion of passion, the depth of issues and emotions that arise in heroes, remove the shade of sweetness and falsity that was usually inherent in the happy end, the happy end of the Victorian novel.

Charlotte Bronte is a landscape master. She saw the world through the eyes of the artist – so she was not only a writer, but also an artist. Beautiful and infinitely diverse landscapes in her novels of her native north of England, all those heathery valleys and hills, then wrapped in a blue haze, then flooded with moonlight, or frozen in by the cold wind.

The idea of ​​equality of people becomes the leitmotif of the book, permeates every page of it, accompanies every thought of the author. The emancipation of a woman, the struggle for her equality with her husband – is only one aspect of this idea. No wonder in the scene of the declaration of love, little Jen vigilantly defends not only her feminine, but above all human dignity. “Do you think that when I am poor, impious, simple and small, I have neither a soul nor a heart? .. You are wrong! .. I have the same soul as you .. and the same heart!”.

4. Tragedy of the plot

 

Actually, the tragedy of the plot stems from the fact that the heroine over puts her human dignity, she seems humiliating gifts, which showers her Rochester. It is impossible for her happiness, built on deception – it also degrades human dignity. Only faith in the justice of one’s own actions gives Jen the power to hold her head high.

Not in wealth and peace she sees her happiness. For her, the ideal of human happiness is active activity for the benefit of others. Jen is convinced that it is better to be a rural teacher, poor and honest than her mistress’s mistress, comforting with imaginary happiness and then bursting with tears of remorse and shame.

The author gives her heroine a chance to enrich herself without marrying Mr. Rochester (she inherits an uncle from her unknown uncle). But Jen gives up much of her legacy because she doesn’t need the extra wealth, only the minimum that will give her independence. Her main treasure is spiritual treasures. Finding your relatives, doing them well, not being alone, feeling human warmth, and warming others up with their warmth is what matters to her. The writer understands the ideal of service to people humanistically: service does not have to be the sacrifice that a person forces himself to bring to others. It must be embodied in such forms as to enrich the one who gives himself to this service.

Rochester is associated with all the romantic experiences of the heroine, all the mysticism that sometimes appears in the work. These are the strong feelings caused by love, these are dreams that seem to be powerful, these are voices that sound through the distance of time and space … Jen repeatedly states that she is very close to Rochester in her tastes and preferences. Apparently his image and symbolizes himself, gives way to the romance that is characteristic of her nature, but is unable to find a way out in the everyday life of a poor girl.

An organic blend of realistic truth and romantic temperament, sincerity and immediacy are the main “secret” of the appeal of Bronte’s books. “The passionate protest force that her novels breathe makes one forget the shortcomings of her writing skills: the tendency for melodramatism, the exalted sentimentality, the artificial and sometimes helpless techniques that imprint the old-fashioned style on some of her pages.”

Among Russian readers, Charlotte Bronte found numerous adherents of her talent, her novels were translated into Russian immediately after its publication – in 1849 in “Patriotic Notes” was published “Jen Eyre”, after which MG Chernyshevsky recorded in his diary: ” “Very good, it’s just a pity they try to mix tragic scenes here with melodramatic and scary adventures – they shouldn’t have done that.”

5. Conclusions

 

The best novels of the writer are published now. Together with her great contemporaries, Charlotte Bronte stood at the sources of English critical realism that was so highly regarded by Marx.

“A brilliant galaxy of modern English novelists,” Marx wrote in an article in The New York Tribune, “which, in bright and red-lingual books, revealed more political and social truths to the world than all professional politicians, writers, and moralists combined, of all sections of the bourgeoisie, from the “very noble” rentier and the capitalist who thinks that doing any business is vulgar, and ending with the petty merchant and clerk in the lawyer’s office. What did Dickens and Thackeray, Miss Bronte, and Miss Gaskell describe? As people self-confident, hypocritical, despotic and ignorant; and the civilized world confirmed this sentence with a murderous epigram: “they crawl before those who are higher than them, and behave like tyrants with those who are lower than them.”

It’s been over a hundred years since Charlotte Bronte died. Much has changed in the world, and far, perhaps in other ways, literature has gone. But now, when we take John Eyre off the shelf, we are fascinated by the whirlwind of events and adventures, we obey the intense rhythm of the heroes’ inner lives, and most importantly, the writer’s unwavering belief in the overwhelming force of humanity and justice leads us. Therefore, her works today have not only cognitive and educational significance, but also retain the power of emotional and aesthetic influence – that is, a force inherent only in the works of true art.

September 15, 2010 The United Kingdom celebrates 120 years since the birth of the most famous and successful in the history of literature author of detective stories, the English writer Agatha Christie.

The anniversary date is celebrated throughout this year. In Britain, performances, flower exhibitions, tea parties “a la Christie” and readings of world famous works are held. Tours are held throughout the country to places where Christie herself and the heroes of her books have been, and also conduct mystery tours and detective tours.

Despite the fact that the writer was born in seaside Torquay, the most massive travels “following Christie’s” promise to be in London. On September 19, John Carran, an expert on the work of the British writer and author of The Secret Records of Agatha Christie, will conduct a tour of the places in the capital that are associated with the famous British.

Not only Hercule Poirot lived in London: Christy herself came here in 1918 and first settled in the Kensington area, and then moved to Chelsea. Tickets for the tour, according to the organizers, were sold out several months ago.

In addition, the BBC television and radio corporation is preparing several projects for the 120th anniversary of Christie’s birth. In honor of the anniversary, the BBC publishes on its official website a small archive with radio comments, audio and television interviews of the writer and about the writer, including the author’s discussion on the topic “How to write a bestseller.”

Also, these days on the air of BBC Radio 4, Christie’s works about Harley Keane, the hero of 12 stories of Christie, are heard.

This week at the Christie’s House Museum, visitors are offered the famous Chocolate Cake “Marvelous Death” from the book “Murder Declared.”

The culmination of the holiday will be a gala dinner for Christie fans on September 15 on the beach in Torquay and a festive fireworks display in the writer’s hometown.

Biography

What was she like?

The wife of the archaeologist, in the second marriage of Mrs. Agatha Mallone, herself was engaged in excavations – only in the human soul. She compared the creation of detective stories to archaeological work – and every year she published a new novel, and sometimes two or three novels. Finally, her circulation books became equal to the Bible and Shakespeare’s legacy. Anyone who has not read the works of Lady Agatha Mary Clarissa, nee Miller, will still not get anywhere from her influence. Films of her prose – with Peter Ustinov, Vanessa Redgrave, Ingrid Bergman, Sean Connery, Elizabeth Taylor, Tony Curtis, television shows regularly about Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot. Christie’s novels in the world continue to be read. And literary scholars – manic to explore them.

Let the style of Agatha Christie not evolve, and the works are built according to the template. The reader forgives these sins and willingly follows the tireless narrator through the wilds of the human soul.

What is the secret of Lady Agatha as a literary hypnotist? There have been many studies and false sensations. Universities of London, Birmingham, and Warwick conducted a linguistic analysis of her works and concluded that Christie was fluent in neuro-linguistic programming methods.

There were biochemical theories: they say that reading Christie’s novels promotes the production of serotonin, the “hormone of happiness”. And the detectives of Scotland Yard assured that her detectives help investigate crimes and reveal the psychology of the killer – especially in cases of poisoning: after all, Lady Agatha had a pharmaceutical education.

Be that as it may, she led the reader by the nose, played with him like a cat with a mouse: either let go of his attention, then capture again – create tension, suspense, and then she will manipulate the reader to the end. By the way, Christie’s novels were seriously studied by advertisers and PR people: they were looking for a magic recipe for consumer hypnosis from her. “Death creates prejudice in favor of the dead,” the British writer could quote her aphorism on this subject.

The birth of the one and only

Agatha Mary Clarissa Miller, born Agatha Christie, was born September 15, 1890 in Torquay, County Devon (England) to a family of wealthy Agatha Mary Clarissa Miller. emigrants from the United States of America. Agatha was the youngest child in the family. The girl received an excellent home education, mainly music. Only fear of the stage prevented Agatha from becoming a musician.

During World War I, Agatha worked as a nurse in a hospital; she liked this profession and she spoke of it as “one of the most useful professions that a person can practice.” She also worked as a pharmacist in a pharmacy, which subsequently left an imprint on her work: 83 crimes in her works were committed through poisoning.

For the first time, Agatha Christie married on Christmas Day in 1914, Colonel Archibald Christie, whom she had been in love with for several years — even when he was a lieutenant. They had a daughter – Rosalind. This period was the beginning of the career of Agatha Christie. In 1920, Christy’s first novel, The Mystery of the Stiles Incident, was published. In the seventh publishing house alone, the manuscript was printed in 2000 copies. The aspiring writer received £ 25 of a fee.
Disappearance

In 1926, Agatha’s mother died. At the end of the same year, Agatha’s husband Christie Archibald admitted infidelity and asked for a divorce because he fell in love with his golf colleague Nancy Neal. After a quarrel in early December 1926, Agatha disappeared from her home, leaving a letter to her secretary stating that she had gone to Yorkshire. Her disappearance caused a loud public outcry, since the writer already had admirers of her work. For 11 days, Christie’s whereabouts were not known.

Agatha’s car was found, in the cabin of which her fur coat was discovered. A few days later, the writer herself was discovered. As it turned out, Agatha Christie registered under the name Teresa Neal in the small spa hotel Swan Hydropathic Hotel (now the Old Swan Hotel). Christie did not explain her disappearance, and two doctors diagnosed her with amnesia caused by a head injury. The reasons for the disappearance of Agatha Christie were analyzed by the British psychologist Andrew Norman in his book The Finished Portrait, where he, in particular, claims that the traumatic amnesia hypothesis does not stand up to criticism, since Agatha Christie’s behavior testified to the contrary: she registered at the hotel under the name of her husband’s mistress, she spent time playing the piano, spa treatments, and visiting the library. Nevertheless, having studied all the evidence, Norman concluded that there was a dissociative fugue caused by severe mental illness.

According to another version, the disappearance was specially planned for her in order to take revenge on her husband, whom the police inevitably suspected of the murder of the writer.

Despite mutual affection in the beginning, the marriage of Archibald and Agatha Christie ended in divorce in 1928.

In his novel Unfinished Portrait, published in 1934 under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott, Agatha Christie describes events similar to her own disappearance.

Second marriage and later years

In 1930, traveling around Iraq, during excavations in Ur, she met her future husband – archaeologist Max Mallowan. He was 15 years younger than her. Agatha Christie spoke about her marriage, that for an archaeologist a woman should be as old as possible, because then her value increases significantly. Since then, she periodically spent several months of the year in expeditions with her husband in Syria and Iraq, this period of her life was reflected in the autobiographical novel “Tell me how you live.” In this marriage, Agatha Christie lived the rest of her life, until her death in 1976.
Thanks to Christie’s trips with her husband to the Middle East, the events of several of her works took place there. The scene of other novels (for example, “And There Was No One”) was the city of Torquay or its environs, the place where Christie was born. The 1934 Oriental Express Murder novel was written at the Hotel Pera Palace in Istanbul, Turkey (Fig. 3). Room 411 of the hotel where Agatha Christie resided, now her memorial museum. The Greenway Estate in Devon, which the couple bought in 1938, is protected by the National Trust Society of Monuments.

Christie often stayed at the Abney Hall mansion in Cheshire, which belonged to her brother-in-law James Watts. At least two works of Christie took place on this estate: “The Adventure of Christmas Pudding”, the story is also included in the eponymous collection, and the novel “After the Funeral”. “Ebni became an inspiration to Agatha; from here were taken descriptions of places such as Styles, Chimniz, Stownates and other houses, which in one way or another are Ebni. ”

In 1956, Agatha Christie was awarded the Order of the British Empire, and in 1971, for achievements in the field of literature, Agatha Christie was awarded the title of Cavalierdam (English Dame Commander) of the Order of the British Empire, whose owners also acquire the noble title “lady”, used in front of the name. Three years earlier, in 1968, the title of Knight of the Order of the British Empire was awarded to Agatha Christie’s husband, Max Mallowen, for his achievements in the field of archeology.

In 1958, the writer headed the English Detective Club.

Between 1971 and 1974, Christie’s health began to deteriorate, but despite this, she continued to write. Specialists at the University of Toronto investigated Christie’s writing style over the years and suggested that she suffered from Alzheimer’s.

In 1975, when she was completely weakened, Christie transferred all the rights to her most successful play, The Mousetrap, to her grandson.

The writer died on January 12, 1976 at her home in Wallingford, Oxfordshire after a short cold and was buried in the village of Cholsey (Fig. 4). Even after his death in 1976, Agatha Christie surprises fans with new works. In September 2003, an unknown play was found in the archives of the British Library – The Secret of Chimniz Castle. And in 2008, Agatha’s grandson Christy Matthew Pritchard released an audio recording of an interview with his grandmother.

The autobiography of Agatha Christie, which the writer graduated in 1965, ends with the words: “Thank you, Lord, for my good life and for all the love that was given to me.”

Christy’s only daughter, Rosalind Margaret Hicks (Rosalind Margaret Hicks) also lived 85 years and died October 28, 2004 in Devon. Agatha Christie’s grandson, Mathew Prichard, inherited the rights to some of Agatha Christie’s literary works and is still associated with the Agatha Christie Limited foundation.

Creation

Agatha Christie’s “Autobiography”

In an interview with the British television company BBC in 1955, Agatha Christie said that she spent evenings knitting in the company of friends or family, and at that time she was working on thinking over a new storyline, by the time she sat down to write a novel, a plot was ready from start to finish. By her own admission, the idea of ​​a new novel could come anywhere. Ideas were brought into a special notebook full of various notes about poisons, newspaper articles about crimes. The same thing happened with the characters. One of the characters created by Agatha had a real living prototype – Major Ernest Belcher, who at one time was the head of Agatha Christie’s first husband, Archibald Christie. It was he who became the prototype of Pedler in the 1924 novel “A Man in a Brown Suit” about Colonel Reis.

Agatha Christie was not afraid to touch on social issues in her works. For example, at least two Christie’s novels (Five Piglets and The Trial of Innocence) described cases of judicial errors related to the death penalty. In general, many of Christie’s books describe the various negative aspects of English justice of the time.

And once a British creativity researcher Christy John Curran presented a surprise to the public. It turned out that in the 1930s. Agatha wrote an anti-dictatorial work about Hitler – “The Taming of Cerberus” – in a cycle based on the 12 exploits of Hercules – with the Augean stables, the Lernean hydra, the Nemean lion. The work was not published, and it was lying in the attic of Christie’s country house. Curran, delving into paper treasures in Lady Agatha’s house, as she herself had once been – in archaeological antiquities during expeditions with her husband, printed an unknown political utopia of Mrs. Christie. The novelist, who thoroughly knew the human soul, turns out to be naive in believing that the dictator can be re-educated with the help of Christian love …

The writer has never made the topic of her novels a crime of a sexual nature. Unlike today’s detective stories, in her works there are practically no scenes of violence, pools of blood and rudeness. “The detective was a moral story. Like everyone who wrote and read these books, I was against the criminal and for the innocent victim. It could not have crossed anyone’s mind that the time would come when the detectives would be read because of the scenes of violence described in them, for the sake of getting sadistic pleasure from cruelty for the sake of cruelty … ”- she wrote in her autobiography. In her opinion, such scenes dull the feeling of compassion and do not allow the reader to focus on the main theme of the novel.

Agatha Christie considered the best novel “Ten Little Indians” to be her best work. The rocky island on which the novel takes place is written off from nature – this is the island of Burg in South Britain. Readers also appreciated the book – it has the largest sales in stores, but to comply with political correctness, it is now being sold under the title “And There Was No One”.

Heroes

Hercule Poirot

Biography

Poirot, along with Miss Marple, is one of the two main characters in the works of Agatha Christie. Poirot is a Belgian émigré, a former policeman (Fig. 5). This served as an explanation in the first book about him (in general, the writer’s first novel), “The Mysterious Incident in Styles”, why such an experienced detective is without work in the countryside – after all, Belgium was occupied during the action and writing of the novel (1916, published in 1920) Germany. Agatha Christie wrote in her Autobiography that there were many Belgian immigrants in the city of Torquay, where she lived.

There are many versions of the appearance of his name Hercule (the French form from Hercules): they pointed to Hercule Popo – the image of Mrs. Marie Bellock Lounds, others spoke of Hercule Flambo Gilbert Chesterton; surnames of Poirot: “Monsieur Poirot, a retired Belgian policeman living in London” by Frank Evans Howell, “Poirot” in French is also consonant with leek.

The predecessors of Poirot in the detective genre were Auguste Dupin Edgar Allan Poe, Sherlock Holmes Arthur Conan Doyle. Point to the similarity of Poirot with Inspector Ano A.E.V. Mason.

For some time, Poirot worked as a private detective and kept his detective agency, where Miss Lemon worked. The action of many novels begins there. The latest cases of Poirot, in the description of which a detective agency appears, are published in the collection “The exploits of Hercules”. In subsequent works, the detective agency is not mentioned. However, Poirot still acts precisely as a professional private detective, and not as an amateur.

Poirot becomes famous throughout England, even carrying out investigations of national importance (Fig. 6). He reveals many cases and almost never makes a mistake. His only defeat took place in Belgium in 1893 and is described by Agatha Christie in the story “A Box of Chocolate” and mentioned in the novel “The Endhouse Riddle”. Several times, Poirot tries to “leave the stage”, but crimes overtake him wherever he appears.

Already in the first novel, Poirot was an elderly man and lived after that another decade. The events of Agatha Christie’s novels take place at the same time at which they were written, unless otherwise expressly agreed. Thus, it turned out that Poirot is aging very slowly, having formally lived for more than a hundred years.

Back in 1930, Agatha Christie called Poirot “unbearable”, and in 1960 “vile, pompous, tiring, egocentric, inactive”. But readers loved him, and Christy did not leave the character, considering it her duty to them. Poirot dies only a year before the death of Agatha Christie in the novel Curtain, published in 1975. The action takes place in Stiles, where he began his triumphant career in England. Hercule Poirot was the only fictional character to whom an obituary was provided on the front page of The New York Times: “August 6, 1975. Hercule Poirot, a famous Belgian detective, died.”

Currently, the rights to the character belong to the grandson of the writer Matthew Pritchard.

Appearance and personal qualities

Poirot is small in stature, with an egg-shaped head, black hair that he begins to dye with age (some on-screen incarnations are depicted balding or bald), “cat eyes”, well-groomed clothes, shoes (often leather shoes) and a mustache, which are his pride. Poirot’s way of dressing is obsolete over the years. Poirot always keeps his home clean. His house is in perfect order, and everything is in place. His clothes are always clean, there is not a single speck of dust on him. This almost manic passion for order also helps him in solving crimes. Poirot is very punctual, carries a pocket watch.

Poirot is not modest and openly calls himself a great man. He tries to complete the investigation with a dramatic finale, sometimes even with theatrical elements.

By revealing family dramas and love secrets, even some minor crimes, during the investigation, he only makes them public if absolutely necessary.

For all the time he lived in England, Poirot had never been interested in women. He himself said that women were his weakness, but he did not fall in love with anyone. The detective fell in love only once in Belgium when he was young and worked in the police, but this novel was not successful.

Poirot speaks pure English, but sometimes speaks with a strong accent. He explains this in the novel “The Tragedy in Three Acts”: when he speaks with a strong accent, everyone begins to think that he is a simple foreigner who does not even know how to speak English, and do not pay attention to him. This helps Poirot to catch the killer without frightening him.

Method

Although the name Hercule comes from the name of the ancient hero Hercules (Hercules), but if the former accomplishes his exploits thanks to incredible physical strength, then Poirot using the “little gray cells” of the brain (Fig. 8).

Poirot’s method is to link all the facts, no matter how insignificant, into a single picture. He is able to remember the smallest details of the testimonies of witnesses, and it is these details that lead him to the correct solution to the problem. The pursuit of truth and the lack of scrupulousness allows him to rummage through other people’s things, read other people’s letters and eavesdrop on conversations. Hastings, as a typical English gentleman, always protests against such methods. Poirot is also a lover of psychological experiments. Such experiments have repeatedly allowed him to figure out the killer. Poirot talks about the role of a detective:

Satellites

Often, Poirot is accompanied by Captain Hastings (in 8 novels until 1940 and most of the stories). Poirot investigates many crimes alone, and sometimes he is accompanied by Miss Lemon, Ariadne Oliver or Chief Inspector Jepp. In one of the novels, Poirot’s companion is a character who, it turns out, was the killer. In the novels “Cards on the Table”, “Death on the Nile” and some other Poirot deals with other heroes of Christie. In the novels “Drama in 3 Acts” and “The Clock,” Poirot does not play the main role, but it is he who unravels the riddle at the end.

Captain arthur hastings

In the first book, Poirot meets Captain Hastings, whom he met earlier in Belgium, and they become friends. Arthur Hastings is also present in the last book with the participation of Hercule Poirot’s Curtain, where he becomes the main character and reveals the secret of the plot after the death of the great detective.

Arthur Hastings – a retired military man, a gallant sentimental gentleman, a true representative of England of his time; has a developed imagination, courageous and faithful friend of Poirot. He believes that he “understands women well”, however, he is often deceived in his expectations; in almost every book he meets a woman whom he feels from sympathy and sympathy to falling in love and even love (“Murder on the Golf Course”). Poirot considers Hastings not very smart, but useful for his ability to “stumble” on the truth.

At the end of the Silent Witness, the captain acquires a terrier named Bob. Hastings marries a young singer, Dalsi Duvin (Murder on a Golf Course) and leaves with her for Argentina, where they have two boys and two girls. Sometimes he comes to England on business, and to visit Poirot. His wife dies before the Curtain, and his adult daughter Judith appears in the same place.

Ariadne Oliver

Ariadne Oliver accompanies Poirot in almost all of Christie’s later novels. She replaces Hastings and instead makes a traditional detective trick: she says something that accidentally prompts Poirot to make the right decision. First meets Poirot in the novel “Cards on the Table”, and the last book in which Mrs. Oliver is present is entitled “Elephants Can Remember.”

The detective writer Ariadne Oliver, who wrote more than fifty-six novels, was self-caricature for Agatha Christie. Her main character Finn Sven Gyerson has already pretty tired of her, but she continues to write about him, catering to readers and publishers. Poirot was never interested in her work. She is known to hate alcohol and public speaking and loves apples; often changes hairstyle, hats and clothes.

Chief Inspector Jepp

Scotland Yard Senior Inspector Jepp is present in almost all of Poirot’s early novels. He usually does nothing to help the detective, but only conducts an official investigation. First appears in The Mystery of the Stiles Incident. With Poirot, they met back in Belgium. In some works, the role of the chief inspector is limited to the fact that he arrests the exposed killer. The last novel in which he appears is One, Two, Three, Button Up Shoe.

Miss Lemon

Miss Lemon is Poirot’s secretary. Appears far from all novels. Miss Lemon’s role is negligible. Poirot, having a detective agency, must have a secretary. Sometimes it plays an important role in investigations, helping Poirot not only as a secretary.
Miss Marple

Jane Marple, better known as just Miss Marple, is a character in the detective stories of Agatha Christie, appearing in the thirteen mysterious storybook and 12 of her novels. Marple is an old maid, an amateur detective living in the small English village of Saint Mary Mead.

Character story

Miss Marple first appeared in The Thirteen Mysterious Cases, which was published in The Royal Magazine in December 1927, and in 1930, Miss Marple became the protagonist for the first time in The Murder in the Vicar’s House. In 1940, Agatha Christie wrote the novel The Forgotten Murder, the last of the Miss Marple series, but did not publish it, so as not to upset readers waiting for the old woman’s new adventures. The novel was published only in 1976, some time after the death of Christie herself. Between 1942 and 1971, ten more novels were published in which Miss Marple was the main character. She also appears in Miss Marple’s Recent Stories.

Agatha Christie’s “Autobiography”

The image of Miss Marple

Miss Jane Marple is an old maid modestly living in the small English village of St. Mary Mead (Fig. 10). Her main activities are caring for plants in a small kindergarten and various social assignments, which she often carries out with pleasure (for example, collecting donations for various local events). Periodically, she gets out somewhere to visit friends, relatives or just relax. Constantly knits, gives knitted things to friends, relatives, or donates to charity. Well versed in flowers, other plants and gardening in general. Very curious. In her village, where she lived most of her life, she knows everything about everyone, is keenly interested in the life of her neighbors, always up to date with all the events, rumors and gossip. In the village, she has no relatives, only friends, which include most of the elderly neighbors. Her nephew Raymond is a writer, he lives in the USA, occasionally visits London, does not forget his aunt and periodically helps her.

Miss Marple looks unpresentable, her speech can often seem incoherent and confused, she is inclined to skip from one to the other in her explanations, but at the same time the old lady has a strong character and a great analytical mind, which she loves to exercise, unraveling the ones encountered on her life path riddles and unusual cases.

When murders occur in St. Mary’s Mead or where Miss Marple is at this moment, she immediately begins her own investigation into the circumstances of the case (which is why the police disapprove of her presence, although some police officers who met with the old woman before , penetrate her respect and are advised during the investigation of the case) and always finds the solution to the mystery. At the same time, Miss Marple has never worked in the police, is not a professional forensic scientist and, in general, has always been engaged in purely peaceful affairs. Her strength, as an amateur detective, lies in her sharp mind, extremely wide knowledge (especially when it comes to events in her native village), and, most importantly, in excellent knowledge of human nature. She believes that the types of people, in general, are always and everywhere the same, and correctly identifying the type, one can confidently draw conclusions about the person. Therefore, one of her “professional tricks” is to find in the past of her native village a case reminiscent of the incident being investigated, or a person who, by her behavior, is similar to the one she is dealing with now, and draw a parallel between the circumstances of the past and present events. No matter how far the events of the past happen from the current crime, this parallel allows Miss Marple to accurately explain what happened and name the offender.

Miss Marple is characterized by healthy cynicism – she suspects everyone, regardless of reputation, social status and personal sympathies. She is sure that any person can commit a crime – it is only up to the circumstances that will push him to this. He says that people, even police officers, take too much on faith, instead of carefully checking, and yet “… you can expect anything from any person – this is a property of human nature.” She evaluates the facts as they see them, not trying to build early versions. Her rich life experience allows her to pay attention to details that often elude professional detectives. Finally, the appearance and behaviors of an old gossip gossip pleasant in communication make it possible, without arousing suspicion, to talk with people on various topics, ask about their personal and family life, relatives, money matters, ask them to show a family album, ask a lot of immodest questions and receive answers to them.

We can say that Jack London became a writer, overcoming family rock. Scandalous fame knocked on his fate before he was born. In June 1875, San Francisco residents read a chilling blood story in the Chronicle newspaper: a woman shot herself in a temple in response to her husband’s request to kill an unborn child. The heroes of the public scandal were Flora Wellman, the erring daughter of a decent family, and wandering astrologer Professor Cheney (Chaney), the mother and father of a future writer.

Professor Cheney’s past is little known: a thoroughbred Irishman, spent many years in the seas in his youth. By the time of Flora’s acquaintance, he was a fifty-three-year-old astrologer with his clientele, for whom he made horoscopes, a lecturer, a popularizer of the occult sciences, and author of relevant books and articles in the journal “Common sense” – the first atheistic publication, which meant “progressive.” The professor considered astrology as exact a science as mathematics and, for example, being very affectionate, fended off reproach in violation of morality, pointing to his horoscope: “Alas! So it kind of says to me. ”

Thirty-year-old Flora was ugly – having suffered from typhoid in her youth, she wore false black curls and big glasses, hiding traces of the disease. However, a lively, adventurous mind, determined demeanor made her seem attractive. From her well-to-do and honorable family (her father was an entrepreneur) for some reason she left a long time ago, which at that time was an unheard of act for the girl. Relationships with their parents ended forever, and before meeting with the astrologer Flora wandered from city to city, earning bread with music lessons. She was also passionate about astrology, was a passionate spiritualist, and had paid spiritual sessions. They lived with Professor Cheney together for a year, not legally married. Their son Jack was born on January 12, 1876, and Flora had a scar on the temple. The father did not want to see the child. After Flora’s suicide (as the professor thought) and the shame that had fallen on him, Cheney left San Francisco forever and did not acknowledge his fatherhood until his death.

Jack’s last name at the age of eight was given by his stepfather – John London, a farmer, a simple man, a tireless laborer and a loser. Within one year he lost his beloved wife and son, one of his acquaintances advised him to attend a spiritual session – maybe relatives would give him news from there and alleviate his suffering. It is unknown if he received the news, but he found himself a new wife there – Flora.

According to the recollections, he was gentle in character and a handsome outward man. What made him marry unbalanced and exotic Flora is a mystery to many. But Jack was lucky – he found a real father (which is rarely obtained from stepfathers) and two sisters, John’s daughters from his first marriage, who forever became his closest people, especially Eliza. (In general, John London had ten children from his first wife, but the elders already lived separately). The stepfather brought into the life of Jack family warmth – affection, sympathy and support in all matters, which could not, to his nature give him a mother.

Jack’s first true friends were his half-sister, Eliza, who maintained her attachment to him for the rest of his life, and nurse-nurse Jenny Prentis. The childhood of the writer passed in San Francisco and its environs, among ordinary workers.

The whole house was headed by Jack’s mother – a woman energetic, well-educated, but unbalanced and impractical, which often affected the budget of the whole family: eternal need, lack of money, hunger…

One day, seven-year-old Jack opened his classmate’s backpack and pulled out a piece of meat from a sandwich. “I ate it, but I never did it again … Great God! When my classmates were tossing pieces of meat to the ground, I was ready to pick them out of the dirt and eat right there, but I was holding back.” The letters of the writer reveal to us the tragedy of his childhood: “… I am merely presenting some prosaic moments of my life. They may be the key to my feelings. And until you become familiar with the instrument on which these feelings play, you will not be able to understand the meaning of music. .What I felt and thought during this fight, what I feel and think now – you do not understand it. Hunger! Hunger! Hunger! Ever since I was pulling that one piece of meat and knew no call but the belly call, and to this day, when I already hear a higher call – still m is zatmevaet feeling of hunger. ”

Young Jack was infused with a sense of responsibility from an early age and tried his best to help his stepfather and mother. He was up at three in the morning and went to sell the morning papers. Then, not having time to go home, he went to school, and after school – again on the street, to carry out the evening newspapers. “I brought every cent home, and at school I was burned with shame for my hat, shoes, clothes. Duties – above all, from now and forever, I had no childhood … On Saturdays I drove ice, and on Sundays I set up balls for drunk players … “.

But despite all the material difficulties, Jack was a curious and outspoken teenager.

He had a good time at school, addicted to reading from an early age, and his teachers enjoyed reading his books. In the rare free hours, Jack liked to wander the fields with his stepfather or read with his sister Elise light novels published in local newspapers. Sometimes they managed to break away from home and spend the whole day by the sea. Then Jack learned about the existence of a city public library and became one of its most regular readers. He is no longer satisfied with tabloid novels, and he eagerly addresses the “real” books – the “Adventures of Perigrin Pickle” by Smollett or “The New Magdalen” by Wilkie Collins.

But there wasn’t much time for reading. The stepfather was out of work, and the care of the family was laid on Jack’s shoulders. He spent many hours in the port, where he watched with burning eyes watching the mysterious life of large ships, enthusiastically watching for the desperate quarrels of sailors. Impressive and independent Jack was irresistibly drawn to the romance of the Seas. He willingly helped the yacht owners to wash the deck, carry out their other errands, and mastered the intricate art of driving small sailing vessels between cases. After graduating from elementary school, he managed to buy an old tree for his savings, on which he dared to cross the San Francisco Bay, even with a strong southwest wind.

Thus, John London went through many professions – bricklayer, carpenter, vegetable trader, agent of the Zinger company, policeman, farmer … As a result, the family was in distress all the time, wandering from place to place, expensively paying for the next “economic hobbies” of Flora. When their farm, which yielded good income, because of “improvements” Flora declined, London moved to the suburbs of San Francisco – Auckland.

After graduating from elementary school in 1890, he enrolled workers at a cannery, where he worked for 18-20 hours. “I didn’t know of any horse in Auckland that would work as many hours as I …” he recalled at the time. Tired, barely getting home on foot and falling asleep to sleep the next morning, hardly dawn dawn, go to the factory again. He threw his books away, and for weeks his lurch swayed lonely at the pier.

Afraid of finally becoming a working cattle, he makes a pretty daring act for his age – he takes a nurse, Jenny, who loved him maternally, three hundred dollars, buys a Rizzle-Dazzle sloop and becomes an “oyster pirate” life-threatening poaching raids along with the “oyster fleet”.

Oysters “pirates” handed over to restaurants and had good earnings. When he was lucky, Jack was earning a ton of money overnight, able to gradually repay his debt and help his family. He again appeared in the city library, took with him a stack of books and voraciously read, closing in a small cabin of his sloop.

Now, equal to his new friends on fishing, a fifteen-year-old teenager has led a fully adulthood, loving violent fights, cabbages, undiluted whiskey, wild songs, even got himself a girlfriend, who arranged his first “family nest” on the sloop … », Watching as a fifteen-year-old sailor sings, gave him a year of life, no more. But once drunk he fell into the water and was nearly drowned. After that, he stopped drinking.

Fortunately, thanks to Jack’s courageous character (he quickly became king of the pirates), he was lured into service by a fishing patrol who was just fighting the poachers he belonged to yesterday.

He is then employed by a sailing schooner. Sophie Sutherland goes to the shores of Japan and to the Bering Sea to hunt for seals. Six months later, he appeared at home, gave away all his mother’s money and began working at a jute factory.

In 1893, Jack London hired a schooner to sailor and went to the Japanese coast to hunt for seals. After returning home seven months later, he was forced to work for a jute factory – there was unemployment in California.

Actually, she pushed Flora into Jack London’s writing, making his vague dreams a reality. Ever anxious about the idea of ​​getting rich, she remembered that Jack’s father was writing books, and brought his son the San Francisco Call, where a contest for the best story was announced, and the winner was promised a twenty-five dollar prize. Jack, without hesitation, settled down immediately at the kitchen table, and a day later the story was ready – “Typhoon off the Japanese coast.” He received the first prize and was published in the newspaper on November 12, 1893, and the reviewer wrote in the same newspaper: “The most striking thing is the scope, deep understanding, expressiveness and power. Everything betrays a young master, ”not suspecting that the master is a seventeen-year-old teenager who has not even graduated from high school. But, unfortunately, the twenty-five dollars of premium went very quickly, and Jack continued to work in the factory.

In the spring of 1894, great unrest occurred in the United States (the period of the American crisis).

Huge unemployed crowds led by Kelly traveled from California to Washington to ask the government for help. At this time, Jack leaves the jute factory, hires a stoker for a power plant, and, upon learning of such an impending mass march of the unemployed, decides to become one of the soldiers of this “Kelly army”.

Catching up with Kelly’s army on occasional trains, he traveled free of charge to almost all of America, visiting Chicago, Boston, Washington, New York. During these wanderings, he nailed himself to the gang of teenagers who taught him how to “knock on the small one on the main course”, that is, to kneel on the central street, how to “ride” a booze, “clean a tight knot”, “shave off” an expensive hat from his head the passerby yawned … His language was enriched by such words as “bulls”, “pharaohs”, “zagrebaly”, “green dudes” and the like. This adolescent experience is included in his book The Road. After all, London never got to Washington, and as a result of his vagrancy, he went to prison and spent a month. In prison, he saw “things incredible and monstrous”, listened to “incredible, monstrous stories” about the arbitrariness of police and courts. Now he understood why, having been released, the former prisoners were not trying to seek justice and, having humbled and calmed down, decided to “not make noise” and “wash away”. Jack London recognized the class nature of American justice, as they say, in his own skin.
Perhaps this event made him return to the sailor and returned home to Auckland. Months of wanderings made the young man think seriously about the future. And now, being at home, Jack takes over the books. He reads the pages of the “Communist Manifesto” as a revelation, puts the most interesting thoughts in the notebook, emphasizes the final lines in bold lines.

Jack firmly decides to become a socialist and again sits at his school desk at the age of nineteen, which has embarrassed him. And on Saturdays and Sundays, he earns a random assignment. But not only does he do floor and window washing in his spare time. He begins writing articles and essays on a regular basis in a school journal.

Being in high school made Jack anxious – he was three to four years older than his classmates. The students did not approve of his work as a janitor and were wary of even his journalism activities.

At the same time he is interested in the then fashionable socialist doctrine, read out by the writings of the Utopian socialists, the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” by Marx and Engels. It was during this period that he became a member of the Auckland branch of the Socialist Labor Party. He could now often be seen at various rallies.

One day, in 1895, he climbs on a bench and makes a fervent speech, and he is arrested. Local newspapers have widely covered the case, calling Jack a “socialist youth,” and many in America have known him for many years by this nickname. The story came to an end many years later, when, after the death of Jack London, the mayor of Oakland planted an oak tree in honor of the writer-socialist at the very place where he was arrested in 1895.

But it happened decades later, and while many of his acquaintances from “decent families” were horrified to read in the next issue of the school magazine his article “Optimism, pessimism and patriotism”: “Americans, patriots and optimists. and bring education to the masses! ” Needless to say, after that the doors of many houses were closed in front of him. But Jack did not grieve; he was still in the family of the Applegate engineer, whom he met at the Auckland club, with his son and daughter Mabel, with whom he had a friendly relationship.

Mabel is a fragile, bewildered creature with impeccable manners and neatly laid-out university knowledge in a pretty head. He fell in love with her with all the fervor of age and worshiped her as a deity. This whole story will be reflected in his most famous book, Martin Eden. “In almost every country in the world, I have met authors who have assured themselves that, owing to their impetus and determination to become writers, they owe it to reading Martin Eden …,” says Irving Stone, a biographer of Jack London.
But, perhaps, for Jack London himself, the decisive “impulse” to become famous as a writer and get rich was to love Mabel. However, this impulse could be love for any other girl, just Mabel brilliantly coped with the role played by fate – its indecision and class prejudice involuntarily spur the ambition of the aspiring writer.

In 1896, he left school and spent nineteen hours a day reading his books, preparing for admission to the University of California at Berkeley. Jack passed the exams successfully, but only one semester was studied due to lack of funds: mother and stepfather had to be kept.

Again, he faces a huge problem – what to make a living? And Jack is determined to become a professional writer. Spending the last penny on postage stamps, he begins to send through the magazines his stories and essays, humorous couplets and sociological articles, but none of them are accepted for printing. The need makes him go to work at the Belmont Academy Laundry. A future writer who will glorify America all over the world has been washing, starching and ironing the underwear of students, teachers and their wives for eighty hours a week. On Sunday, he was only capable of getting some sleep.

From this impasse, he was snatched by the Klondike gold rush: from the newspapers he learns that gold was found in Klondike in Alaska, and immediately there was a flood of seekers of earnings and adventures. The Gold Rush forces Jack to quit his studies and for a short while, on July 25, 1897, London, together with Shepard, the husband of Eliza’s half-sister, sails for money from their mortgaged house aboard the Umatilla ship in Klondike, Alaska for gold. On the ship, they sailed from San Francisco to the city of Skagway, then a tedious passage through the Chilkut Pass. To pay the porters Indians for half a dollar for every pound of cargo they could not – so, it was necessary to ferry all the equipment and provisions on itself. Jack was ready for such a test. But Shepard, 60, bought a ticket for a return flight to San Francisco.

Jack and his companions – Thompson, the miner Goodman and the carpenter Sloper – had to smuggle eight thousand pounds for many hundreds of miles up the Yukon River. That’s where Jack’s physical strength, knowledge of the maritime business, snubbing and endurance have come in handy. But the four friends failed to reach their destination before the winter began: the confluence of the Yukon and the Stuart River had to winterize only seventy miles from Dawson.

“There is no God but the Case, and Good luck is his prophet,” so paraphrased Jack London’s once famous saying, In the winter of 1897 – 1898, chance and luck accompanied an unlucky gold prospector. He did not find gold, but it was then that he met the heroes of his future stories. For a long Arctic night, hunters and adventurers, Indians and gold-diggers, vagabonds and drunks spent time in conversation at Jack’s hut. The life stories they told, at times unimaginable, but most of them amazing and fairy-tale, firmly settled in Jack’s memory to go to the pages of his life-affirming books in the near future. At the same time, Jack London studied Marx’s Capital and Darwin’s Origin of Species.

After suffering from scurvy, London was forced to return to San Francisco. He brought with him not gold sand, but sketches to the stories and stories that went into the gold fund of American and world literature.

Returning from Klondike without a penny in his pocket, Jack London learned that he had died to his stepfather, whom he passionately loved. All the worries about the family lay on his shoulders. He only occasionally managed to do casual work – the West experienced the effects of the crisis. After buying stamps for the latest money, Jack sends out his short stories to magazines, but they always come back. Jack puzzles, he stubbornly studies published stories, re-reads books by his favorite authors – Robert Stevenson and Rudyard Kipling, tries to unravel the secret of Ambrose Beers’ success. His admiration is evoked by the talent of the Stevenson storyteller; at Beers, he notes “the brilliance of metallic intellectualism,” which “appeals to the mind, but not to the heart.”

His observations of that period testify to a deep understanding of the creative originality of different writers, and to the ability to appreciate the general state of contemporary American literature. Full of life, full of vibrant characters, written in vibrant, lively language, stories and short stories in London, it was difficult to break into the pages of magazines dominated by anemic, sentimental characters. He notes with bitterness in one of his letters that the fate of the writer in the United States is determined by “an innocent American girl who should by no means be shocked and who cannot be offered anything less fresh than mare’s milk.”

The sharp discrepancy between authentic life and its image on the pages of American literary magazines in the late nineteenth century was noted by another prominent American realist writer – Theodore Dreiser. Ambrose Vire described the literary San Francisco of that time as a “paradise place for the ignorant and obtuse” as a “correctional colony of morals.” In the essay “How to start printing” London described his situation during this period: “… let me say that I had only liabilities and no assets, had no income, had to feed several mouths, and as for the housekeeper. she was a poor widow, whose necessities of life strongly dictated the need to pay rent to a certain extent on a regular basis. That was my financial situation when I dressed in armor and opposed magazines. ”

Jack was so weak from malnutrition that he could hardly get up from the table where he wrote his stories. The rags to which his clothes had turned did not even allow him to visit his beloved Mabel. It was not the first time that he had been visited by the thought of suicide;

The development of the “black genre” was interrupted by an unexpected letter from the well-known literary magazine “Transcontinental Monthly” with the news of the publication of the story “For those who are on the way!” where the story was also taken. A solid “Monthly” for one of his best stories paid a fee of five dollars, and a non-solid “Black Cat” for a passing story – forty! For Jack London at the time, it was a fortune. The difficulties are not over, but literary luck has already found its way into his home.

So in the January issue of Transcontinental Monthly (Overland Mansley), Jack Jack’s first story in 1899 saw the story of Jack Westondale, a simple yet complicated story. Other contributors and witnesses to this story – and above all Mailmut Kid – were destined to soon be reborn in the pages of the writer’s new stories, which would constitute his first compilation “Son of the Wolf”, where the Klondike experience went. Criticism was choked with praise: “a great, powerful artist …”; “Inspires the reader to believe in human courage …”; “In contrast to the standard-happy endings, he is dominated by tragic intonations where a person fights the natural forces of nature …”. The Son of the Wolf was put by reviewers on the power of the human spirit even above Kipling, the beloved writer of the time, whom Jack London regarded as his teacher, but it would only happen in a few years.

When the magazine with its first story came out of print, Jack London looked at the kiosk for a long time, then went to a friend, took ten cents, and finally became the owner of a priceless copy of the magazine. Although the Overland Mansley paid little for five to eight dollars for the stories, and very carelessly, the writer sends a second story, White Silence, which is printed in the February issue of the magazine.

Thus, 1899 was a turning point in the fate of Jack London: during the year stories and essays by the writer appeared in several magazines and newspapers not only in the West but also in the East.

Known for its high literary demands, the Boston-based Atlantic Mansley Magazine (The Atlantic Monthly) takes the story of The Northern Odyssey, published in January 1900, into print. In the same year, the respectable Boston publishing house Houghton Mifflin released the compilation Son of the Wolf, which combined nine stories of the so-called “Northern” cycle. The publication of a book in London in conservative Boston, long considered the literary center of the country, meant unequivocal recognition of the writer. It was a distinctive phenomenon in the literature of the United States of the period, radically different from romantic stories written in full accordance with the requirements of the “tradition of misogyny.”

“Son of the Wolf” is a cruel book about a man’s fierce struggle for existence – with another man, with the “white silence” of nature, trying to “prove to man his worthlessness”, with the primal fury of the beast. Not every person emerges victorious from this struggle, and “those who have repeatedly shared a bed with death will recognize her call.” Because of the stupid coincidence, Mason is terribly crippled, and his friend Mile-mute Kid ends his inhuman suffering by firing at a stop (“White Silence”). Unable to stand the loneliness and hardships of life in the North, they kill each other Carter Weatherby and Percy Katfert (“In the Far Land”), Sitka Charlie crushes with his companions the Indians Ka-Rumor and Gouhi, who violated the law of the North – took a handful of flour (” Wisdom of the Snow Trail “). From the pages of the book, a cruel and at the same time simple life stood up to the readers, people needed endurance and courage, willpower and endurance. The most courageous survive – that is the meaning of the stories

Characteristic and the manner in which these stories are written The narration is guided and vigorous, the author expresses neither sympathy, nor dislikes, neither conclusions nor generalizations. It opens the veil as if it were over one, then over the other picture, and gives the reader to judge for himself what he has seen and heard. The factuality of the story is beyond doubt, it becomes clear from the first words of the narrative. that the author is well aware of the people who describe him and the circumstances in which they find themselves. The vitality and authenticity of London’s stories set them apart from most of the pseudo-romantic stories that have filled the pages of many publications.

In general, this period was a turning point in the history of American literature. Together with the first collection of stories by Jack London in the same 1900, he saw the light and Theodore Dreiser’s novel “Sister Kerry”. a work that was about to open a new page in a book of American literature. Just a few “five before, such realistic works as Stephen Crane’s novel Maggie – The Girl from the Street (1893), Frank Norris’s novel” MacTig “(1899) were published. It is remarkable that Norris was the first to pay attention to that” beautiful and irresistible ” the wrestling spirit “of Kipling’s works, which so attracted Jack London.
In the reviews of the first book in London, critics have emphasized. that the stories collected in it are “full of fire and emotion.” Noting in the young author’s works that Kipling’s “power of imagination and dramatic roller coaster”, critics could not help but notice that his stories distinguish “a sense of tenderness and a clear love of heroism, which can rarely be found in Kipling’s “.

The book diverged well, several young publications drew attention to the young author. Even before the publication of the book, the monthly magazine “McClures Megesin” acquired from the writer several of his stories and gave his consent to the purchase of everything he wrote. The American story goes back to a new stage of its development.

Even before Jack London, great masters of the story were created in American literature – the romantics Edgar Poe and Nathaniel Gottori, later – Francis Brett Hart, Steven Crane, Ambrose Vere, who tore the bonds of “the tradition of zealotry. But perhaps it is Jack Londonotonism who has the credit” American story – it became the property of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people of America.Jack London was able to combine in his stories the eternal feelings and experiences of man with his modern reality.

Absurd reasoning.

 

The main feature of this book is that “the absurdity, which until now was mistaken for a conclusion, is taken here as a starting point.” By this, the author immediately emphasizes the uniqueness of this reasoning.

Absurdity and suicide.

 

Camus considers the main and fundamental problem of philosophy “is life worth or not worth living it.” Nevertheless, he considers the remaining questions of philosophy to be secondary.

Thus, answering it, philosophy will solve the question of the meaning of life. “I also know those who, oddly enough, are ready to commit suicide for the sake of ideas or illusions that serve as the basis of their life (what is called the cause of life is also an excellent cause of death).”

Camus sees suicide not as a social act, but as an individual act: “suicide is prepared in the silence of the heart.” And only the last straw in this decision can be something external, a reason for suicide, since “a little could be enough for the bitterness and boredom that had accumulated in the heart of the suicide to break out.” When deciding on the cause, “it is necessary to understand the deadly game that leads from clarity in relation to one’s own existence to escape from this world.”

In many ways, life is a habit, and voluntary death is “recognition of the insignificance of this habit.” What a strange feeling leads a person’s mind to such conclusions, destroying his illusions about the world, and without these illusions the man’s connection with the universe collapses, he becomes an outsider here: “a sense of absurdity is this discord between a person and his life.” Thus, Camus slowly moves on to the main theme of his work – the topic of absurdity in life: “the subject of my essay is precisely this connection between absurdity and suicide.”

But the realization of absurdity does not lead to a solution to the problem. Indeed, if it is an honor that in philosophy there can be only two answers “yes” or “no”, then this does not lead to an unambiguous answer, since “many who answer“ no ”act as if they said“ yes ”.” Therefore, the idea that people leave life on their own pitchfork, realizing that life has lost its meaning, does not give results.

The main topic the author takes the question “Does absurdity lead to death?”

Absurd walls.

 

All feelings are universes, which is also true for individual emotions. Emotions give us an experience of the beautiful or awaken a sense of absurdity, which in turn “awaits us at every corner.” This feeling is elusive and deserves special attention. “Irrational feelings inaccessible to analysis can be practically determined, practically evaluated, combined according to their consequences in the order of comprehension.” Feelings that cannot be fully realized are revealed to us through human behavior. But this is not a method of cognition, it is an analysis, since cognition “presupposes a metaphysical doctrine.”
“We start with an atmosphere of absurdity. The ultimate goal is to comprehend the universe of the absurd and that mindset that highlights this inexorable face in the world. ”

The beginning of the absurd, like all thoughts, is insignificant. “When emptiness becomes eloquent, … the first sign of absurdity appears.”

“Boredom is the result of a machine life, but it sets the mind in motion.” This awakening leads to two outcomes: a return back to the ordinary, or a final awakening, which may end in suicide or “restoration of the course of life.” Thus, boredom brings awakening consciousness and the emergence of absurdity.

A person is constantly eager for the future, and when he reaches the desired point in time, he understands his dependence on him and wants to renounce it. “This rebellion of the flesh is absurd.”

“The foundation of any beauty is something inhuman.” Understanding this, a person realizes his detachment from the universe. She moves away from us, becomes hostile; illusory scenery collapse. This foreignness of the world to which we belong is absurd.

Further, the author gives several more manifestations of absurdity, saying in the same way that he is interested not so much in the manifestation of this feeling as in its consequences. Camus cites Aristotle’s proof of reason entangled in himself during the proof – the first vicious circle. “In order to understand the world, a person must reduce it to the human, put his own stamp on it”, only in this case can we know the world around us. Reason constantly strives for the One, and, overcoming this contradiction, it “proves the existence of differences and diversity, which he tried to overcome” – the second vicious circle. Thus, our desires always come up against an “insurmountable wall”. The author is true that true knowledge is impossible. We can say that we know something only if we feel, we feel, and the subsequent only “mental constructions”. “The choice is between a description that is reliable, but does not teach anything, and a hypothesis that claims to be omniscience, but is unreliable.” It turns out that the state of peace can only be achieved by “abandoning knowledge and life”. Despite this, a person always strives for a clear world, realizing “that all evidence is false.”

The world is unreasonable, and the clash in it of “irrationality and a frenzied desire for clarity” is absurd. This is the only connection between man and the world. And when it is realized, it becomes a “painful passion.” “Why does not the heart burn out at the moment of the appearance of a sense of absurdity?”

“Stop in the desert.”

Here Camus considers “the themes of irrational and religious thought” in the works of thinkers of different eras, “only those positions on which they completely agree with each other.”

Heidegger: the only reality is “care,” its manifestations are boredom and horror.

Jaspers: considers knowledge impossible, “busy searching for the thread of Ariadne leading to divine secrets.”

Shestov: “the most closed system, the most universal rationalism always stumbles on the irrationality of human thinking.”

Kierkegaard: “not only searched for the absurd, but lived by him”, nor any truth is imperfect and therefore cannot give comfort to the mind.

Husserl: denies the method of rationalism, “To think is to learn to see again, to become attentive.”

All of them agree that the possibilities of human knowledge are limited by “walls.” What we cannot understand is irrational for us. The absurdity is born at the moment of the collision “by the calling of man and the unreasonable silence of the world.” Here, a person’s vocation is the desire to calm, happiness, and pacification.

Philosophical suicide.

 

“The sense of absurdity is not equivalent to the concept of absurdity.” The author believes that the conclusions made by the above authors are similar, they are existential. Against this background, the problem of suicide will be examined, “how they leave and why they remain.”

Pausing his argument, Camus decides to examine in detail the concept of absurdity. It is not a state of an object, but is born only when two compared elements collide: “actions with the world lying beyond the limits of this action”. “The bigger it is, the stronger the gap between the terms of comparison.” Thus, the absurd does not exist separately in the world or in man, but is a connection between them. Now it is necessary to deduce the consequences of this fact.
A person knows that he wants what the world offers him and that he is united with the world. And it is impossible to throw out any element from this triad chain, because it will destroy everything. The first principle of the Camus method: “If I intend to solve some problem, then my solution should not destroy one of its sides.” “The condition of my research is the preservation of what destroys me,” that is, it is impossible to remove the absurdity – this will disrupt the course of the whole argument. In this logic, one cannot accept consent, because “the absurdity makes sense when they disagree with him.” Once a person has accepted something for the truth, he will no longer be able to get rid of it.

Existentialists take for granted what destroys them – “forced hope.”

Jaspers says that everything has an explanation in being, in the “incomprehensible unity of the private and the general”, finds in this a means for the revival of the fullness of being – extreme self-destruction, hence concluding that the greatness of God is in its inconsistency.

Shestov believes that the only way to resolve the absurd, to get rid of irrationality, is to turn to God, even if he is “evil and hated, incomprehensible and contradictory.” “The greatness of God is in its inconsistency. His inhumanity proves his existence. ”

For Kierkegaard, Christianity was despair, and after becoming a salvation destroying the absurd, “absurdity is a sin without God.”

Camus calls the existential approach – philosophical suicide, the God of existentialists – Denial (denial of the human mind).

“Absurdity is a clear mind, aware of its limits.” The reasoning undertaken by the author remains faithful to the absurd, i.e. the split between reason and the world is a unifying contradiction. But it also requires balance, it is impossible to put emphasis on any of the components.

Absurd freedom.

 

Man always strives for clarity and coherence of what is happening and truths. But the highest meaning of the world cannot be comprehended by man, therefore there are only two certainties “- my desire for absolute and unity, on the one hand, and the irreducibility of this world to a rational and rational principle, on the other.” We can understand anything only in human terms, thereby separating ourselves from the world and losing meaning. And our desire to overcome the walls that our mind cannot overcome, creates new ones in its path.

Camus then talks about the existential leap that a person needs to make in order to make sense. Similar tricks can be seen in the works of Kierkegaard, Shestov, Husserl, mentioned earlier. An absurd person, not understanding such a requirement for himself, will consider it unobvious and will only want to make it clear to his mind. He wants to “live solely on what he knows, to do what is, and not to allow anything untrue.”

Here the author again returns to the problem of suicide. “It seems that the less meaning there is in life, the more reason to live it.” The absurd is alive when people pay attention to it all the time, which means living. The opinion that absurdity leads to suicide is fundamentally wrong. He is born out of contradiction, disagreement, and suicide is on the contrary reconciliation and consent with his failure, “with his own limits.” For an absurd person, suicide is a mistake, because it is a renunciation.

The riot of the absurd gives life meaning and value. “There is no spectacle more beautiful than the struggle of the intellect with its superior reality.”

The problem of freedom cannot be considered without the problem of God. But in the presence of his freedom is not possible or another option – a person is completely free. “The only freedom available to my knowledge is the freedom of mind and action.” Other concepts of it are impossible for the mind. A person who does not know the absurdity lives with a simple everyday concept of freedom, “even if you often hear assurances that you don’t feel it”, but he does not have “higher freedom”. However, for an absurd person “there is no tomorrow”, this becomes the basis of freedom.

“The universe of the absurd man is the universe of ice and flame.” From the determination to live here, a person draws strength from existence.

For the absurd, the amount of experience or life is more important, not their quality. “Such a life is considered incompatible with the rules of honor, but genuine honesty requires dishonor from me.” This leads to a lack of a hierarchy of experience and a “scale of values”. To understand the experience of a lived life, you must fully survive your rebellion.

Camus writes: “I will deduce from the absurdity the three consequences, which are my rebellion, my freedom and my passion.”

An absurd man.

 

For an absurd man, there is no eternity. He takes the time that “he is given life.” Morality is perceived only by one: given by God, he lives without this god. All life is riddled with rebellion. Man is initially innocent, but permissiveness does not mean complete impunity. “Absurdity shows only the equivalence of the consequences of all actions.” An absurd person accepts responsibility for his actions, and not blame for them. This experience of duty will serve the future. “The result of the search for an absurd mind is not the rules of ethics, but living examples that bring us the breath of human lives.” The very nature of experience is indifferent to such a mind, since the former only benefits when realized.

Camus then considers several examples of absurd people. They are only illustrations and examples, and not a sample or model. These heroes strive to fully exhaust life.

Don Juan

 

Don Juan loves all women equally passionately and does not seek to find exalted feelings. He accepts one of the principles of absurd knowledge: he gives preference not to qualitative, but to quantitative characteristics of experience. “He does not leave a woman because he no longer wants her. But he wants another, and that’s not the same. ” He cannot be called unhappy, because “there are two sad reasons: either because of ignorance, or because of the unrealizability of hopes.” And in him there is no hope, and he knows the limits of his mind, in them he is genius. Don Juan, being a vulgar symbol of the seducer, realizes this, and therefore is absurd. In this endless stream of love, he does not lose himself, does not dissolve in another person, leaving his soul forces to revolt with the world. According to the author, the hero is ready to pay for his life, ready to suffer ridicule and punishment.

Camus gives two options for the death of Don Giovanni: death at the hands of a detractor who wants to punish a libertine and voluntary imprisonment in a monastery. The latter can hardly be considered remorse; he “worships and serves God as he previously served life.”

Theatre.

 

For a modern person, theater is a place where you can gain experience that applies to your life, without the expense of a large amount of energy. This is a hope for something better for oneself, but for an absurd person there is no hope. He “appears when hopes are over, when the mind no longer admires the game, but enters into it.” The fate of the actor is absurd: he lives his roles, and they live in him. It is absurdly a contradiction in the unity of many souls in one body. These roles live in different eras, and the actor, playing them, travels in time. But in spite of everything, the main punishment of life will overtake him precisely in his time – death. “As for an absurd person, premature death is irreparable for an actor. You can’t compensate for those faces and centuries that he didn’t have time to realize on stage. ”

Camus compares the actors with the traveler: their path is time, and the goal is souls.

The church does not accept this behavior of actors, considering it heretical.

Conquest.

 

Throughout life, a person seeks evidence of only one truth. “If it is obvious, one is enough for life.” Time comes and the individual must make a choice: contemplation or action. This is what will mean that he became a man. Camus chooses an action for himself, because he does not suffer compromises. This means taking the side of the absurd, the struggle. Greatness for a conqueror does not mean victory, because a man cannot achieve the highest victory over the world.

“Man is a goal in himself. And he is his only goal. ” The purpose of this knowledge of truth. Realizing his greatness of his mind, at least for a while, a man exalts himself, considering him “God-given.” The conqueror is a person living such moments of greatness. The only luxury for him is “human relations”.

There is no eternity for reason; it is not comprehensible. And so the main punishment is death, which all ends. The conqueror tries to conquer her too, calling ahead of time.

Those people who argue with action choose contemplation, the eternity of the world. They worship death by accepting it. They are the opposite of the conqueror. Experiencing the trials of his fate, a person can sympathize with himself. But only the strong in spirit are capable of this.

The myth of Sisyphus.

“The gods sentenced Sisyphus to raise a huge stone to the top of the mountain, from where this block invariably rolled down. They had reason to believe that there is no worse punishment than useless and hopeless work. ”

Camus considers the hero of this myth an absurd person. “He is like this in his passions and sufferings.” Sisyphus is punished for his earthly passions, disobedience to the gods and sincere love for the world.

The state of the hero is interesting at the moment of a short stop – a pause between endless suffering. It is at this moment that consciousness returns to it. The tragedy of the myth is based on the conscious behavior of Sisyphus.

Camus compares the life of a modern person with this myth, considering it as tragic and in many ways absurd. The actions of people are routine, monotonous and do not bring any benefit.

The clarity of the hero’s consciousness conquers fate and turns suffering into joy. This happiness is also in the memory of the world and life, so beloved by Sisyphus and in the fact that his heart is filled with a “struggle for the summit.”

“Sisyphus should be imagined happy.”

My attitude to the issues raised in this work.

I share the opinion of Camus that suicide is a departure from problems, an awareness of one’s helplessness and weakness. But at the same time it is a bold step.

The life of each of us is absurd to some extent. Everyone struggles with the obstacles of fate, wanting to subjugate it to themselves. The presence of “walls” for the human mind is also clear. The world cannot allow a person to become equal with him, to know the Truth of being. We are not omnipotent, we are shown this every time, as soon as someone seeks to overcome the walls. New ones immediately appear on his way. Only those who do not yet see their walls, the limit of the possibilities of the mind, consider themselves smart.

An interesting fact is that the absurdity exists only in the struggle, disagreement. After all, even a momentary reconciliation destroys it, there is no more ground for the existence of the absurd.

The myth of Sisyphus is a famous legend from ancient Greek mythology. Camus gives her a new life. The idea of ​​the similarity of the work of Sisyphus with the work of modern people is undeniable. After all, there is little use in bureaucracy, statistics, and similar activities. They do not create new things, they only repeat routine actions. Sisyphus’s happiness is in his work and that he sees the point in this.

Life a is divided into three stages. The first – before the appearance of the poem Childe-Harold’s Pilgrimage (1788 – 1812) – is characterized by a whole string of disappointments: the main of these was the awareness of innate lameness; others brought school, first love, entry into the literary field, complexities in dealing with others … The second stage was marked by the glittering glory that came after the publication of Childe-Harold’s Pilgrimage, and the subsequent persecution after breaking up with his wife and society12 (18). 1816). Leaving England and recovering from the hardships he endured, Byron first took part in the Italian Revolution, and then in the uprising in Greece, it was there, in the midst of events, that he died. This is the period of greatness of Byron – poet and man (18! 6 – 1824).

* * *

George Gordon Byron was born in London on January 22, 1788, in circumstances not the most favorable: his mother, shortly after the birth of her son abandoned by a wretched husband, experienced the “shame of bitter poverty” – she came from an ancient Scottish kings and inherited a rich fortune boy.

To promote health, her mother brought a 10-year-old Byron to Scotland, where her ancestral estate was and where the sea was noisy. He made friends with the sea, “leading a child’s hand on the mane of the ocean,” as he wrote afterwards. In need of funds, the mother rented the castle and settled with her son in a small town, contented with a modest, semi-urban existence.

The years of teaching at the aristocratic school for the young Lord Byron were marred by the consciousness of his poverty, loneliness and lameness, compounded by the charlatan’s “cure.” Subsequently, this disadvantage did not prevent him from becoming a good boxer, a great rider and an excellent swimmer.

Suffering from adversity and injustice, the boy was able to develop a heightened sense of responsibility and truth. He sought to patronize the weak and protect the offended. A highly active personality, Byron felt strongly about a turning point and regretted that he was born too late and did not take part in the revolutionary battles of the late 1911s. At the same time, he was very proud of the inherited title of Lord, which was sometimes more expensive than literary fame for him.

“Lord Byron is a young man with rabid passions, he needs silk reins,” the school principal said. And it is true that school attachments acquired the character of passionate love. For thirteen years, he has written the first poem, “At Margarita Parker’s Tomb,” in memory of a girl he loved. By Harrow’s time, Byron’s strongest passion was Mary Chavort. The beautiful girl rejected him. And this heart wound was not healed by any success in the field of love. He conveyed his feelings for Mary Byron throughout his life:
I love the name Mary. A lot of dreams

And a whole series of unfulfilled dreams
In my soul with that name merged …

It’s still nice to me …

According to the poet, the happy outcome of his love for Mary could give a completely different direction to his life. However, there was also a positive moment in this situation – the birth of the first collection of poems, Leisure Hours (1807). Although the society at the time did not appreciate it and even criticized it – for the full title of the author on the cover, for the mention of many female names, for imposing on the public the image of a dojuan and a heartthrob – the conclusion made by Byron’s ridiculous mockery was the opposite of the impression. If the collection had been successful, Byron, he said, might have left poetry forever. But now he has decided to prove to everyone that he is a poet.

By the tradition of the Peers of England, noisily celebrating his age, Byron decided to take a seat in the House of Lords.

Following the same tradition, in the summer of 1809 he set out on a long journey across the continent. For two years he traveled to Spain and Portugal, the Mediterranean islands, Albania, Greece and Turkey, and Asia Minor. The return was forced – the funds ran out – and sad: he buried his mother, two friends and his beloved woman. Loneliness, sadness, the consciousness of the futility of existence – this is the result of his two-year journey. But – not the main one! He did not know what treasure he had brought with him – these were his travel sketches.

On the advice of a friend, he processed these sketches and published. Thus appeared the first two songs of the poem Childe-Harold’s Pilgrimage. But even before their publication, Byron became famous as a speaker: he defended in the House of Lords the Luddite workers who had broken the machines, and his speech was a success, though it did not reach its goal. These two rays lit his star – and one morning Byron woke up famous.

The success of the poet in society was promoted not only by the halo of glory, but also by the charm of personality: a mysterious stranger who spent two years in exotic countries, a brilliant lord, a handsome man, he attracts the attention of both men and women. Byron enters the literary circle, where he is welcomed

Walter Scott, Moore, Sheridan (it should be noted that many of them were unfairly hurt by his satire).

Still maintaining his independence from the opinion of society, always speaking frankly, Byron, with his critical, satire-minded mindset and audacious demeanor, was able to make many enemies in the world. They were only waiting for the moment – and the case soon turned.

His marriage was unsuccessful. The wife – Anabella Milbank – did not share the poet’s interests. Being educated and even writing poetry, she was completely alien to Byron’s free-spirited poetry, annoyed by his proud, impatient and fervent temper. A month after the birth of her daughter

Ada she, having taken away the child, returned to the parental home. Becoming involved with psychiatrists, Anabella tried to help them declare Byron insane. When that failed, she filed for divorce.

The spouse’s separation act, drawn up after Lady Byron rejected all her husband’s requests and protests, seemed to draw a scandalous situation. But it was only with Byron that it could happen that the family mess had grown into a social drama. Those who could not forgive the poet of the independence of the spirit, the free-thinking, the satirical epigrams and the rebellious spirit of his poems, set in motion all means to bring the bills with him. By the joint efforts of the creditors, Byron’s property was described. The newspapers were full of mocking notes and caricatures. Its appearance in society became impossible – insults, mockery, and sometimes stones poured down after it.

In April 1816, saying goodbye to his sister Augustus, the only one remaining faithful to him until the end, Lord Byron left England. As it turned out, forever.

In Italy, the poet found what he lacked in his homeland – the possibility of active participation in the liberation struggle of the people. And this, in turn, served as a powerful source of inspiration for his creativity. Byron resumes work on the poem Childe-Harold’s Pilgrimage. Here, in Italy, he ends the dramatic poem Manfred. Writes “Don Juan” … From the exotic singer of the East Byron becomes a poet-thinker, philosopher. He learns from his own experience, how fragile, everything that a person strives for – happiness, glory, power …

Having humbled pride in the great sorrow of the ruins of Rome, he no longer wants revenge for grievances – this is a matter; “Time. His worldly sorrow was cleansed of personal, private and accepted sublime shade. Meeting with another English exile – poet Shelley and his sister, Jen Clermont Jen’s new love for her and her responsive feeling inspire new strength and hope …

The love of Jen Clermont (she gave birth to his daughter Allegro) was new, but not the last … His passion for Italy was heightened by his passion for the beautiful Countess Teresa Gvichioli. Married to a 60-year-old old man, the young Countess, seeing Byron, realized that he was her fate. And the poet gave her her life, soul, love. Teresa’s brother, Pietro Gamba, a carbonarium, was an ardent admirer of the poet. Byron joined the liberation movement, fascinated by the ideas of the Carbonari. However, he was not satisfied with the sluggishness and inconsistency of the revolutionaries. The uprising in Greece at this time predetermined his further path – he rushes for help.

Becoming at the head of the rebels, he showed non-dozen military talents – coordinated actions, led negotiations, made plans. Its headquarters were in the swampy area of ​​Missolunga. The hardships and hardships of camp life undermined Byron’s health. He became ill with fever and died on April 19, 1824. His death words were about Greece: “I gave her my time, my means, my health. Could I have done more? Now I give her life. ”

Don Juan’s demonic laughter, laughing not to cry, came to an abrupt end … The poem remained unfinished. And hardly Byron could put a point in it. In spirit, it is endless. And eternal, as all creativity of the poet – that time has proved.

Revival in literature
The discovery of the waterway to India proved fatal for Italy. At the end of the 15th century, the world trade highway was already far away from it, and this undermined its internal forces. “… The revolution of the world market since the end of the 15th century has destroyed the commercial dominance of Northern Italy,” K. Marx wrote.

Wool from England and Spain ceased to arrive, and the cloth production of Italian cities almost completely ceased. European states that developed their own production ceased to need Italian goods.

True, artists still travel to Italy for science in Italy, as before, Italy is revered as the center and center of cultural life in Europe, a kind of university of art. The wealthy people of England, France, Germany, Spain turn to Italian masters with orders, sometimes not noticing that their own, national cultural forces have already grown. However, Italy has already irrevocably ceded to other countries its primacy in economic power. World trade routes have moved. Actively began to bustle life in England, France. Italy remained aloof. Once noisy cities were empty, working people, not finding demand for their own hands, left for the villages. The provincial lords again felt the power on their side and pulled the country to feudal antiquity.

And then the war began. Spain and France fought for Italian wealth, fought in Italy. Foreign troops robbed and terrorized the population.

In the second half of the 16th century, Spain subjugated almost all of Italy. Sicily, Sardinia and Southern Italy, Tuscany, Montferrat, Genoa, the Duchy of Milan, Parma, Reggio, Piacenza, the Duchy of Ferrara, Modena and others lost their independence. And along with the loss of independence, the economic exploitation of Italian lands by the Spanish invaders in the form of indemnities and taxes began. This continued in the XVII century.

The national tragedy of the Italian people was completed by the Catholic reaction. The papal authority, combined with the Spanish enslaver of the country, laid its heavy, bloody hand on the creative thought of the people, and the mighty genius of Italy, creating incomparable art masterpieces that surprised and delighted the world, fell into a deep centuries-old dream.

The Renaissance Italian proudly looked forward, he believed in himself, believed in reason, believed in human strength. He was worried about the big problems of the life of the Universe, the Earth, human Society and Man himself. He boldly stormed everything that prevented us from understanding and resolving these serious problems, and he was brave, cheerful and talented.

Leaving the cramped, gloomy cave, Where the error of the lawsuit tormented me, There I leave the chains that a hostile hand squeezed on me – exclaimed one of the last fighters of the Renaissance Giordano Bruno. Bruno was executed in Rome on the Square of Flowers on February 17, 1600, in the second month of the 17th century. The reaction executes Galileo even more cruelly. She burned Giordano Bruno at the stake, without forcing him to submit. She leaves Galileo alive, breaking his will, abusing his scientific conscience, forcing him to abandon his teachings.

The Italian of the 17th century ceased to believe in the omnipotence of reason, for the sorrowful pictures of the suppression of reason by the brute force of fire and sword showed him modern reality. He became gloomy and suspicious, he lost his courage, he lost his talent. The most unprincipled retained the gaiety of the spirit and with ease in thoughts and feelings turned to poetic trinkets.

Such is Marino (1569-1625), a native of Naples, Jambattista, who baptized a whole current in literature in his own name.

Marinism is by no means a specifically Italian phenomenon. The features that characterize the literature of Italian marinism are also inherent in English literature of a similar type, which went down in history under the name of euphism, and Spanish, known under the name of cultism, and French, the so-called precision literature.

Marino, an adventurer by way of life, repeatedly went to jail, escaped from them, lived in poverty, content with a crust of bread, then in well-fed well-being, merrily groveling before aristocrats. He was well-read and, unashamedly, transferred to his pages what his brilliant memory kept from reading Ovid, and Virgil, Lucretius and Poliziano. In 1615 he went to France to the court of Maria Medici, the Italian wife of Henry IV, who was killed in 1610. Here in 1623 he publishes his huge poem in 45 thousand verses and 20 songs “Adonis”, dedicating it to the young king Louis XIII. Returning to Naples already a rather wealthy man, he was enthusiastically greeted by his compatriots and after death elevated to the rank of great poet.

The plot of his poem is not new. As you know, Shakespeare’s pen belongs to the magnificent processing of the ancient myth of Venus, in love with the beautiful young man Adonis. Marino tells the love story of the goddess with a somewhat mocking grace, equipping the speech with subtle erotic hints. His verse is light, elegant, distinguished by a sonorous rhyme.

The peculiarity of his writing is made up of unexpected metaphors, images, comparisons. This is the secret of his glory. The reader is in a state of constant surprise. Marino was the inventor of the so-called “Konchetti”, masterly phrases, unusually applied epithets, unexpected turns of speech. Such, for example, is the neighborhood of mutually exclusive concepts: “learned ignoramus”, “dumb speaker”, “rich beggar”, “joyful pain”, etc. The stars in Marino’s poems are nothing but “sparks of eternal love”, “sparkling ducats from the heavenly mint ”,“ gentle dancers of the sky ”,“ torches during the burial of the day ”. A kiss for Marino is an “all-healing medicine”, and the beauty’s mouth is a “beckoning prison”. Hundreds of such comparisons are scattered in the poems of the poet, they amaze contemporary readers, delight them, forcing them to see in such an inventive poet a genius discovering a new, still unknown field of poetry.

Marino is cheerful, but this cheerfulness does not come from optimism, which the Renaissance is full of, but from the consciousness of the futility of all the worries and anxieties of life. This is the gaiety of despair. Why grieve when you still can’t fix the world? Why puzzle over the mysteries of the universe? After all, you will not allow them. Isn’t it better to flutter like a moth, fun and carefree? And it was pleasant in those gloomy days, it lulled a woeful consciousness, lulled a suffering soul.
If you seriously ask Marino and he will honor you with a serious answer about his thoughts regarding human life, then this is his answer:

“As soon as a man was born into the world, his eyes are already open for tears.

Even in the cradle, a person is deprived of freedom, beatings grow a little older, and then there are insatiable passions, then illness, suffering, old age, “and now his grave gloom encompasses for a century …” (“On Human Life”).

The Baroque philosophy is completely in control of Marino’s mind. For a joke, he expresses, for example, such thoughts: “Folly makes the world beautiful; for, since it consists entirely of contradictions, this opposition forms a ligature that prevents it from disintegrating. ” This is not a simple joke. The true social philosophy of Marino is here. He cites France as an example. “France is full of inconsistencies and imbalances, which, in the form of a certain consensus disagreement, support its existence. Freakish customs, ferocious passions, incessant coups, uncontrolled civil wars, immoderate extremes, confusion, turmoil, inconsistency and foolishness – in a word, everything that should have destroyed it, in fact, by some miracle of it supports! ” (letter to Loreizo Scoto).

The fame of Marino in the XVII century is almost universal. They imitate him, praise him, praise him to heaven.

However, some contemporaries of Marino already saw in his work a danger to Russian literature. The poet Gabriello Chiabrera (1552–1638) seeks to contrast Marino’s elaborate poetry with the antique simplicity of form. He takes the work of Torquato Tasso as his model, creates heroic poems in imitation of him, writes pastorals, eclogues, melodramas and tragedies, masterfully mastering the verse. However, the poetry of Chiabrera is aristocratic; it is dominated by a cult of refined beauty and gallant anacreontism. Ciabrera is a poet of idyllic rural landscapes with antique nymphs, cupids. He himself spent almost his whole life away from noisy cities, singing in idealistic nature and lovely beauties, whose lips are like roses, lips – pearls, “legs – marvelous”, “bliss of a glance”, not without grace and grace, “songs” (canzonetta) and so forth in the same spirit.

Fulvio Testi (1593–1646), a Ferrara courtier, was influenced by both Marino and Chiabrera. His poetry is not without a political element; he complains about his paltry age, bitterly laments the national humiliation of Italy, and sometimes even raises his voice against the “arrogant nobles.” Testi is fond of ancient Latin poetry, imitates Horace, but his poems are as effeminate and gallant as the poems of his brothers Marino and Ciabrera.

Mention should be made here of Vincenzo Filicaya (1642-1707). He, as verbose, cutesy, mannered as his fellow writers, once rose to the height of true mastery. His pen belongs to the famous sonnet “Italy! Italy! ”, Which excited both his contemporaries and descendants. Byron translated the sonnet into English (Childe Harold, chap. IV, stanza 42).

Realism and Satire
Sad modernity could not but excite the writers of Italy in the 17th century. Separate voices call on Italians to unite, to rally forces against foreign oppressors. The outstanding patriot was undoubtedly Alessandro Tassoni (1565-1635).

In the Philippines against the Spaniards, he vigorously protests against foreigners who suppressed the thought and will of Italy. The poet is worried, indignant and awakens the patriotic feelings of his compatriots. He scornfully rejects Marino and the Marinists (“Reflections on the Poetry of Petrarch”), opposes the authority of Aristotle in literature (“Different Thoughts”), correctly understanding the destructive spirit of imitation and authoritarianism for the original development of literature.

Tassoni’s famous satirical poem “The Abducted Bucket” (1622), ridiculing Italy’s regional disunity, called for national unity. The poem was a great success both among Tassoni’s compatriots and outside Italy.

The plot of the poem is based on a comic episode of a quarrel between residents of the cities of Bologna and Modena. As early as 1325, the Modena people stole a wooden bucket from the Bolognians (this bucket is stored in Modena as a historical relic), and the strife between the cities dragged on for many years. The epic seriousness with which the author tells of such an insignificant event produces a comic effect. However, only a few pages were written seriously, in a sublime tone, next to them are grotesque, caricature figures designed for the laughter of readers. Old Saturn sets himself a klystir; Mars – in stockings to the waist and with a sultan in a hat; Diana washes clothes; parks bake bread, and the roguish Silenus dilutes the wine of the gods with water. Song XI contains a comic story about a certain column with a “chicken heart” forced to fight a duel, about his fears and miserable behavior in a duel:

The count at night, in anticipation of a duel, could never close his eyes … And at dawn in the state of state he terribly presented himself as a suffering stomach.

Tassoni puts in the mouth of his comic count love poems in the manner of the gallant lyrics of Marino:

“Souls of my apple, mirrors!

In you, beauty admires itself;

You, eyebrows, in which was hidden

Amur’s arrow, similar to a bowstring … ”

The satirical trend in Italian literature is closer to folk poetry, somewhat rude and far from aristocratic pomp. The nephew of the great Michelangelo, Michelangelo Buonarroti Jr. (1568–1646), creates a series of funny folk comedies (Fair, Rural Comedy), saturating them with Italian street air, folk tones, bringing to the scene the typical types of street crowds.

At the end of the 17th century, a group of poets appeared in Italy, declaring their desire to eradicate the evil spirit of marinism and return literature to simplicity and genuine sincerity.

In the palace of the Swedish Queen Christina, who abdicated and settled in Rome in 1655, a circle of poets, scholars, and critics was formed who severely condemned marinism and gallant depravity. A return to the innocent purity of morals is the moral slogan of this group. After the queen’s death, a certain Academy was founded by the visitors of her salons, called “Arcadia” (1690), symbolizing by her own name the desire to find a promised place on earth where happiness would not be overshadowed by the rudeness of real life. The infant Jesus was declared the patron saint of this Arcadia, and the shepherd’s pipe, twisted with garlands of laurel and pine, became its emblem. Meetings of its members took place somewhere in the lap of nature, in luxurious parks in the vicinity of Rome.

The members of the Arcadia, speaking out against marinism, cultivating shepherd’s poetry with all its features dating back to Theocritus, were not far from the first critic of the Marinarians of Ciabrera.

Their poetry was as far from the people as the poetry of Marina. The idyllic shepherds with their gallant love became the favorite characters of aristocratic poetry.

Tommaso Campanella (1568–1639), who continued the Renaissance traditions of philosophical literature, stands apart in Italian literature of the 17th century.

Campanella’s life is grim. From the age of fifteen he has been in a monastery, where he studies philosophy and theology. Having barely reached adulthood, he is included in the struggle of the best minds of his time against scholasticism and the spirit of authoritarianism, which attracts the wrath of the Inquisition. Then the restless thinker begins to dream of the liberation of his homeland from Spanish rule, prepares an uprising. The plot is uncovered, and Campanella is in prison. Twenty-five years of imprisonment, torture, bullying, deprivation. Barely released, he barely breathed in the air of freedom – and again enters the struggle. When the prosecution of Galileo began, Campanella defended him. Could he look indifferently at the oppression of human thought? Again the persecution. Campanella is threatened with a new prison. The philosopher is forced to leave his homeland. Far from her, in France, he is dying.

Campanella – the son of another century, the Renaissance, he essentially did not live in the XVII century, distant, isolated from public life for many years within the walls of the casemate, so he remained in the XVII century a living tradition of the Renaissance, his utopian novel “City of the Sun” (1623) full of bright dreams for the best structure of human dormitory. Somewhere on the islands of the Indian Ocean, some navigator saw a completely different life, different from European social systems, of people. There they worship the Sun and the supreme ruler bears the name of the Sun. There, at the head of the state are the Power of Wisdom and Love. The people have one book, written concisely and accessible to everyone, and it is called “Wisdom.”

This people does not recognize property, seeing in it the beginning of all vices. Gum everyone is working. There is no envy, nor ambition, and all are inspired by love for the fatherland. The benefit to society is the highest criterion of all expediency.
Speaking of Italian prose of the 17th century, one cannot help but name Galileo (1564-1642). The scientist, like the humanists of the previous century, used the polemical art of journalism in order to disseminate his scientific ideas. In his “Dialogue on the Two Major World Systems” (1632), they argue about the Ptolemy system and the Copernicus system. A supporter of Ptolemy Simplicio (Rustic) wholeheartedly defends the geocentric system, refuted by Copernicus. The reader greets the stupid Simplicio with a smile. The Vatican’s censors opened their eyes to the pope, saying that in the image of Simplicio Galileo portrayed none other than the governor of God himself. This decided the case and Galileo was brought to trial by the Inquisition. June 21, 1633 he renounced the teachings of Copernicus. The next day, at the Church of Santa Maria in Rome, he brought public repentance on his knees and was recognized as a prisoner of the Inquisition.

The scientist’s condemnation, but perhaps more, his renunciation deeply shocked the world and paralyzed free thought for a long time in Italy itself.

One cannot fail to mention Traiano Boccalini (1556-1613), who lived most of his life in the previous century and brought the indomitable spirit of humanistic rebellion before his death, Bokkalini published a satire Izvestia from Parnassus, which quickly flew around neighboring countries, in a brief review of XVII century Italian prose , subsequently translated into many European languages. Against the dominance of the Spaniards in Italy against aristocratic snobbery, against literary pedantry this clever, brilliant joke and sharp irony of satire is directed.

Boccalini takes up arms against literary aristarchs who recognize only the aesthetic rules of Aristotle and swaddle young talents in them. The writer jokingly describes the alleged conversation between Apollo, the god of art, and Aristotle: “Apollo with an extremely angry face and voice very irritated asked Aristotle if he was the shameless and daring one who dared to enact laws and publish rules for the exalted gifts of artists, for whom he, Apollo, always demanded complete freedom of writing and creativity; for the living talents of his writers, free of any rules and not bound by chains of precepts, to his great pleasure daily enrich schools and libraries with beautiful works. ”

Aristotle justifies himself by saying that the ignoramuses used his name to oppress the poets, but he only wanted to help the fragile talents find the true paths of art.

Сonclusion

This criticism of literary scholasticism is noteworthy if one imagines the subsequent two-century struggle against the falsely understood Aristotelian principles of art in Western Europe, and especially in France.

In this essay, having examined the position of culture in Renaissance Italy, we see in the Italian literature of the 17th century a complex interweaving of various styles, their struggle and mutual influence. Ciaberera and “shepherd’s” poets of the end of the century are fighting against Marino and Marinism for the “simplification” of literature, but they also cultivate a kind of “aristocracy of the spirit” and belong to the Baroque literature equally, representing only various aspects of it in their work.

Alessandro Tassoni rejected both baroque poets (marinists) and advocates of imitation and authoritarianism in Italian poetry (classicists). His satirical poem, The Stolen Bucket, is written in the spirit of rebellious realism of the Renaissance. The same indomitable spirit of protest against all sorts of canons and literary dogma lives in the magnificent satire of Boccalini.

French poet. B.’s poetic activity coincided with the heyday of the French literature of romantic and Parnassian movements. After the storm of the French revolution and the epic of the Napoleonic wars in France, a bourgeois order was established that failed to fulfill not only the aspirations of the broad masses of the people, but also the aspirations of the middle classes, that petty bourgeoisie, which gave the greatest number of artists in general and in particular writers and poets. Deep disappointment swept through the minds. On the one hand, the result of such disappointment was disbelief in the old principles of reason, which should enlighten and correct the world. The views of the encyclopedists were buried, and in their place there was an opposite cult of passions, irrational or mystical moods. There was no hope of a political exit from the vale of sorrow on the path of radical social reform. On the basis of deep pessimism, which gripped the best minds, a huge, not only English, but also the world phenomenon of byronism grew up, disappointment with a strong admixture of revolutionary fermentation.

However, other features were also characteristic of romanticism. Simultaneously with Byron (see), the less powerful, but still master of the minds was Chateaubriand (see), who, although he was the same disappointment with many features very similar to Byronism, but with a large admixture of aesthetic Christianity and reactionary noble ideology.

The intermediate position was occupied by artists, who wanted to go into their art in the game of imagination, flights of fantasy, and in enjoying their craft to find life content.

If the chapter is so-called. “Parnassus”, who advanced this purely formal attitude to poetry, Leconte de Lille (see), was at the same time a deep thinker and one of the most pronounced pessimists of his age, while others did not climb so deeply and only sought to create “enamels and cameos “[the name of the collection of poems by Theophile Gauthier (see)] with quirkiness and clear juiciness of the word.

The son of his time, B., was likewise filled with disappointment and indifference to the ideas of progress; he was skeptical or even hypochondriacal to the surrounding life. At the same time, he loved the verbal skill, musical and jewelry accuracy of expression as a means of transferring his sorrows and sufferings into works of art and thereby at least somewhat quench them. B. however, stands out sharply from other poets of that time with a certain inclination towards extreme sophistication and even perversion.

Individually, this was explained in B. of course by his illness. He came from a hereditarily manic family. The hereditary predisposition and the conditions in which he lived led him also to drug abuse. Bored, dismissive of his unsatisfying reality, B. is looking for unheard of entertainment, something completely new and finds this not only some satisfaction: he is proud of his moral and aesthetic dendism. To be dissimilar to others, to be cautiously respected as a “satanic poet,” was the pose chosen by the French poet, due to his character and social conditions.

But the poet is not only a person: he is primarily a social figure. Each time, he chooses one or another personality for his full expression and highlights either more or less healthy or sick natures. There was so much boredom in the then French society, so much contempt for life, and at the same time so much need to overcome their suffering by transforming them into artistic forms, to “sublimate” the suffering, that such a person as B., with great talent, could be a very vivid representative this branch of the then social well-being and its spokesman in literature.

However, in the middle of the last century, the bourgeoisie had not yet so outlived its vital resources that Baudelaire, the first decadent (decadent), was immediately understood by the surrounding society. Only the most sophisticated connoisseurs worshiped him.

A large audience at first passed him. Only later, when decadence, that is, aestheticism with the ideas of death, sin, illness, debauchery, became the main motive of poetry, B. was declared a great predecessor and even the founder of decadent symbolism.

It should also be noted that in the era of 1848, when a strong revolutionary convulsion shocked the bourgeois world, Baudelaire woke up, as it were. By this time belong his works – “Twilight”, “Dawn” and “Feast of the rag”. Democratic and slightly revolutionary notes began to appear in B.’s poetry, but they soon died out in even more gloomy disappointment.

B.’s personal life was terrible. His love – the mulatto Duval, was an unscrupulous drunkard who tormented the poet. His small fortune was completely eaten. By the end of his life, B. was almost a beggar. He died, paralyzed and forgotten.

His main work is “Flowers of Evil” (Les fleurs du mal, 1857; there are Russian translations of Yakubovich-Melshin and Ellis; many other poets also translated it: Sologub, Vyacheslav Ivanov, etc.). “Flowers of Evil” is the quintessence of those moods about which we spoke above. A contemporary of the Parnassians, who demanded extraordinary filigree of the poetic form, firmness of structure, economy in words, strict rhythm and choice of images and deep correspondence of expressions to them, B. not only obeyed all these conditions, but turned out to be one of the largest masters of such a classical form in its own way. verse. B. belongs to the breed of sculptor poets. He carves or forges his poems. His works are solid, every word definitely stands in its place. The skill here is courageous. Since the content usually expresses ideas close to despair or half-madness, dirt or baseness of a deep fall, moral and physical, it would seem that this content is in sharp contradiction with the form. Actually this is not. Like Leconte de Lily, B. such a combination of content with form gives the impression of restraining himself, the full dignity of stating the horror of life.

Before us is a poet who knows that life is darkness and pain, that it is complex, full of abyss. He does not see a ray of light in front of him, he does not know the way out. But he did not despair from this, did not get upset, on the contrary, he seemed to squeeze his heart with his hands. He tries to maintain some kind of high calmness in everything, seeks as an artist to dominate others. He is not crying. He sings a courageous and bitter song precisely because he does not want to cry. Later, poets of this decadent type completely lost such a balance and such a severe faceted form.

In addition, Baudelaire wrote Little Poems in Prose (Russian translation of Alexandrovich, M., 1902, and Ellis, 1910), a diary entitled Naked Heart (Russian translation of Ellis, M., 1907). He also owns a series of articles on fine art, in which he showed himself to be a man of amazingly delicate and faithful taste and a great master of words in the field of criticism, and an exemplary translation of short stories by Edgar Allan Poe (see), which had a tremendous influence on French literature. At the height of decadent symbolism in France, B. was raised to the shield and proclaimed almost the greatest poet in France. Now this delight has largely subsided. But B., of course, will forever remain an excellent exponent of that moment in the history of the French bourgeoisie and intelligentsia, when it lost all the power of its idealism, for the best part could not reconcile itself with the scarcity of bourgeois prospects, fell into despair, mixed with a dream, but still showed some reflections of the revolutionary upsurge of energy and took its sad fate, at least in the face of its poets, not without a certain greatness. No wonder B. was still a contemporary of two revolutions and, as they say, in February fraternized with revolutionary workers. The Baudelaire cult of everything perverted, vicious and artificial, generated by the city, urban civilization, its aesthetics and immoralism – all this had an extremely significant impact on the Russian Symbolists. Trying to get away from reality into the world of dreams, our decadents of the “older generation” (Bryusov, Balmont, Sologub, Annensky, even earlier Merezhkovsky, Minsk) found excuse for their moods in the chased verses of “Flowers of Evil”, where contempt for life and nature, as to “weekdays” and “prose,” was elevated to principle, in the “pearl of creation.” B.’s individualism left its imprint on the Russian decadence of the first time – the cult of the proud, towering above the world “I”, who knew everything and was fed up with everything, did not recognize any moral standards, imperiously mixing good and evil.

Thomas Aquinas (1225 or 1226, Rokkasekka Castle near Aquino, Southern Italy, 7.3.1274, Fossanuova Monastery, Southern Italy), medieval philosopher and theologian, systematizer of orthodox scholasticism, founder of Tomism; Dominican monk (since 1244). He studied at the University of Naples (1239–44), then at Albert the Great in Paris (1245–48) and Cologne (1248–1252) universities. Since 1257, doctor of the University of Paris. He lectured in Paris, Cologne, Rome and Naples. In 1323 he was canonized in the Catholic Church, in 1567 he was recognized as the fifth “teacher of the church.”

In the main monumental works “Summa of theology” (about 3 thousand articles, not finished) and “Summa pagan” summed up the theological and rationalistic searches of a mature scholasticism aimed at practicing dogma in forms of common sense. The culture of common sense, the ordering of “natural” reason, over which a tier of “supernatural” dogmas is built, F. A. after Albert the Great found at Aristotle. The task that F. A. sets for himself is the ordering of the multitude into unity, and not just the contemplation of unity, detached from all multiplicity; he, as it were, seeks to deduce the being of God from the being of things. In this, F.A.’s thinking differs from the abstract speculation of the early scholasticism (Anselm of Canterbury), which was oriented toward Plato, Neoplatonism, and Augustine. In the headings “Summings of theology”, the same patterns of thought are superimposed on the infinite variety of specific issues – from five proofs of the existence of God to determining the boundaries of the permissible and unacceptable in financial activities, etc.

The ontology of F.A. is based on the antithesis of “potential” (possible) and “actual” real) that goes back to Aristotle. “Potential” is an oscillating, unsteady, open to change incompleteness and so far imperfection. “Pure potentiality” – matter, “the weakest kind of being”; it is characterized only by passive susceptibility to external influences. “Actual” is realization, fulfillment, completeness and thereby perfection. “Actual” in its opposite of matter is form — the principle of order and clarity; absolute relevance that does not allow any potentiality – God, the source of all design. Matter introduces into the form and intrinsic form of ideal universality the concretizing “principle of individuation”. In everything that exists, F. A., following Aristotle, distinguishes between “substance” (essence) and “accidents”. The ontology of F.A., as is generally characteristic of medieval philosophy, is colored in value: “existing and good are interchangeable concepts” (Summa theologiae, II, q. 18, a. 3).

Anthropology F.A., especially associated with acute ideological conflicts of his era, comes from the concept of the human individual as a personal combination of soul and body. The soul is intangible and substantial, but it receives the final fulfillment only through the body. F.A. defended this idea both against Platonic Augustinian spiritualism and against Averroism (Seager Brabant), who taught about a single impersonal intellectual soul in all thinking creatures of the universe. The teaching of Origen about the essential identity of angelic and human nature, from the point of view of F. A., is false. The human soul is not just the “engine” of the body, but its substantial form. This concept provoked opposition from the Augustinist-Franciscan opponents F.A. until it was adopted at the Viennese Cathedral in 1314 as the orthodox doctrine of the Catholic Church. In averroism F. A. saw the overthrow of Christian eschatology, appealing to the fate of the personal soul. The personality for F. A. is “the most noble in all rational nature” (ibid., 1, q. 20, a. 1), intelligence is always personal intelligence and so far not an absolute beginning, but part of the whole. Only in God, intellect is essence, in man is the potency of essence, so that not “intellect thinks”, but man thinks “through the medium” of intelligence. This inclusion of intellect in the soul-body individuality and the denial of its absoluteness, arising from Christian dogmatic premises, is combined in F. A. with the assertion of the primacy of intellect over the will. F. A. believes that the mind itself is higher than will, but makes a reservation that in the life plane, love of God is more important than knowledge of God.

The ethics of F. A. is characterized by the doctrine of “natural law”, which God put into the hearts of people and is described in the spirit of Aristotle’s ethics; a “divine law” is built over it, which surpasses the “natural law”, but cannot contradict it. In the treatise “On the reign of sovereigns” F. A. combines the notions of Aristotle about man as a social being, about the common good as the goal of state power, about moral good as the middle between vicious extremes, etc. with Christian dogmas and the doctrine of the supreme authority of the pope. F.A., with reservations, recognizes the right of the people to rebel against a tyrant who systematically perverts justice.

The philosophical and theological system of F.A. became from the 14th century Dominican banner.