When a school is a family, it will definitely become the “School of the Future. When a school is a family, it will definitely become the "School of the Future" Dremov Mikhail Alexandrovich

Vladimir Abramovich, your school took part in the "School of the Future" competition and became one of the winners. How do you envision the school of the future?

First, when speaking about the school of the future, it is not correct to have in mind any one model of such a school. Now, for example, everyone is busy with new technologies, computerization, and all modernization is seen as an introduction to new technologies. At the same time, it is forgotten that technology is not an end, but a means. What they do not talk about when discussing the model of the school of the future is about education, about what a person will be like in this new school. They talk about how they will teach him, how to give him knowledge. And you need to take into account all the factors of the development of the child. I hope that over time, the typical variety of schools will increase, educational institutions will become more and more diverse. Things will come to the point that it is for the student that the school and subjects will be selected.

School-laboratory No. 825 is called the school of "practical humanism". What does this mean for you personally?

Pushkin spoke about practical humanism, he believed that all the troubles in Russia are for one reason - because of poor education. Then many well-known teachers, Ushinsky, for example, emphasized that the main thing is a person, not knowledge. If knowledge is turned into a cult, an end in itself, it can suppress a person, the student will turn into a hostage of knowledge. Although schools were created in order to provide education and knowledge primarily, we consider knowledge as a means by which everything human is awakened and formed in a person. This is practical humanism. Until we create this new environment, the attitude towards the elderly and children in our country will not change for the better. We hope that there will be more and more such schools. After all, a good school is one where it is good for a person - both big and small, to which no one is afraid to go, which lives in community, like a small state.

The commandments of the educator of school No. 825, formulated by Vladimir KARAKOVSKY

1. The main goal of education is a happy person.

2. Love not yourself in the child, but the child in yourself.

3. Education without respect - suppression.

4. The measure of upbringing - intelligence - is the opposite of rudeness, ignorance, redneck.

5. Say what you know, do what you can; at the same time, remember that knowing and being able to never again is harmful.

6. Develop originality in yourself: children do not like "pies with nothing."

7. Don't be boring, don't whine and don't panic: it's better to be difficult than boring.

8. Treasure the trust of your pupils, take care of childish secrets, never betray your children.

9. Do not look for a magic wand: education must be systemic.

10. Children should be better than us, and they should live better.

As you know, MSGU graduates come to your school. How do they fit into your team, what place do they have in the "School of the Future"?

Diderot once said that a good school is the one whose students want to be teachers. From the seventh grade, we begin to inspire our students that all great people were teachers. And the point is not whether they worked at the school or not, but each of them tried to leave behind students, followers. We have created a whole system of orientation towards the teaching profession, every year a large number of graduates enter the Moscow State Pedagogical University. We have great guys! The most powerful, oldest, most traditional pedagogical university - MSGU - works with us, and we work with it, soul to soul. For 20 years, 220 people have become teachers - we have provided more than one school with teachers! I hope that in the future cooperation will only become stronger, because many of our students return to work in our school, a third of the teachers of the 825th are our graduates. And most of them are graduates of the Moscow State Pedagogical University. I come to the teachers' council as if it were a classroom hour. We have wonderful young teachers - they are all handsome and beauties - the nobility of the profession also affects their appearance. Now new pedagogical universities have appeared in Moscow, and everyone wants to “poach” us. But the school has loyalty - we are loyal to the Moscow State Pedagogical University. No matter what happens, we will not betray our pedagogical friends!

Of course, after talking with Vladimir Karakovsky, I wanted to see one of the school graduates who, after graduating from Moscow State Pedagogical University, returned to the 825th. There were many of them. For example, a teacher of English and biology, Natalya Sergeevna DEMYANOVA, has been working at her native school for seven years, so she answered questions willingly.

Natalya Sergeevna, you are a graduate of school No. 825, when you came here to teach, did the teachers immediately begin to perceive you as a colleague?

Not even as a colleague, but as a fellow colleague, friend and former student - all together. But when I was at the first teachers' council, the feeling that I was sitting under the table and eavesdropping on the conversation of adults did not leave me, it was unusual for me.

Was it difficult to work with children in the early years?

At first, I was checked at school, but not by the administration, but by the children themselves. I taught the very first lesson at the 10th grade, when I was only 19 years old, and there were sixteen boys and only one girl in the class. The most difficult thing was to identify the leader to make it easier to negotiate with other children. Of course, at first a lot of things were difficult, but still interesting. We then called up and talked with these guys, they talked about their student successes.

What is your interesting combination of subjects, and is it not difficult to teach both biology and a foreign language at the same time?

No, I like teaching both biology and English. There was even an experience - I gave several lessons of biology in English. Naturally, first I had to introduce new English terms and analyze the topic of biology in Russian.

Today, a person who knows English can get a very well-paid and prestigious job. Are you planning to leave your school?

I am asked this question very often, my friends wonder why a young girl suddenly went to work as a teacher, they advise me to find a “normal” job. But it's mine, I can't work anywhere else - it's like wearing a dress that doesn't fit, you'll just feel uncomfortable in it. Therefore, I am not going to change my profession.

Irina KOMAROVA, a teacher of computer science and mathematics, is also a graduate of the 825th and is very proud of it.

Irina Viktorovna, how many years have you been teaching at school?

I have been a teacher for 14 years, and all 14 years in this school. As I came here to study at the age of seven, I still can’t leave. And I'm not going to. The break was only to study at Moscow State Pedagogical University. The school, by the way, guided us to enter this particular university, and besides, I studied in a pedagogical class. I can say that I did not regret it: I am satisfied with my mathematical knowledge, besides, MSGU provides a very strong scientific base. No matter how many children tried to catch me on mistakes and the strength of knowledge, they never failed. Colleagues-teachers of school No. 825 helped with the methodology, they took care of me and explained a lot.

Have there been any funny stories related to children?

With children, funny and not so stories happen every day. For example, there was one boy who was fond of electrical appliances, came to school with a briefcase full of light bulbs. Usually at the end of the school day, all the light bulbs were broken, and this boy was very angry.

Irina Viktorovna advised me to talk to the teacher of computer science and physics, Irina Tyurina, her student. Such are the tangled "family" relationships in this school. Therefore, naturally, the first question was:

Why did you decide to become a teacher and entered Moscow State Pedagogical University?

Looking at our teachers, I really wanted to be like them, in addition, I always liked working with children. When I graduated from school No. 825, almost our entire class entered the Moscow State Pedagogical University. I was in a good sense of the word and today I am shocked by the teachers of the Faculty of Physics, these are people with a capital letter. All of them are very competent specialists, but also excellent teachers: the faculty never forgot about a person. In addition to physics, we were given knowledge in many disciplines related to the student - pedagogy, psychology, the basics of medical knowledge. In life, all this is very useful. When you come to school from a student's bench and still know little, they give a lot of advice, but only until you try it yourself, you don't get burned, you won't understand these tips.

How do you apply the principle of practical humanism in practice in the classroom?

This affects the relationship between children and teachers. The desire of children is put at the forefront, we consult with them, discuss various events, and then analyze the results together. But this does not mean that children in our school are indulged in everything.

Nine male teachers work at Karakovsky's school - by today's standards, this is even a lot. One of them - a teacher of the Russian language and literature, a candidate of philological sciences, a teacher at the department of foreign literature of the Moscow State Pedagogical University - Mikhail DREMOV spoke about his pedagogical path in this way.

I live near the 825th school, I studied there for ten years, I graduated with a gold medal, I know its educational system and the entire teaching staff well. And I have been working at the school since 1999, from the fourth year of my bachelor's degree, that is, almost eight years. Some find it difficult to work where they know you from school age. It only helped me - there was no such process as acclimatization at all, I just returned to my usual team in a slightly different role. At the same time, I just repeated the fate of many of my graduate predecessors who returned to school. But most importantly, I knew that I could work the way I wanted, the way I saw fit, that they would always help me. It has never been different in all these years.

Actually, I, like many of those who come to the philological faculty, especially young men, did not plan to work at the school (although I did not completely rule out such an option). I just did not have clear plans for the future place of work - study attracted more. But by the fourth year, the main desire was to teach at the philological faculty, preferably foreign literature, since there were favorite teachers in every department, but in the "abroad" - most of all. Therefore, I decided to gain experience and came to the school with an offer to conduct an elective course in ancient literature - a period little covered by the traditional curriculum in literature. They took me, I worked for a year, became a little professional, and when I entered the master's program at the Department of World Literature, I decided to continue working at school with the senior classes for two years, first in the 10th, then in the 11th to conduct full-fledged lessons in Russian language and literature . But he did not forget about the desire to work at the department. As a result, by the end of my master's studies, I had a choice: to go to graduate school and start working as a teacher, or to stay at school and become a class teacher in ... 5th grade. I did not choose, or rather, chose both. The load turned out to be monstrous, but I did not make long-term plans - I will work for a year, and then we'll see. As a result, I have been working in this mode for the fifth year and have no regrets. At the end of the year I will graduate the ninth grade, and at the same time those students to whom I came to teach antiquity as a completely “green” teacher will defend their diplomas. In addition, I manage to manage to cooperate with the scientific and educational site SCEPSIS.RU, and in general I am very optimistic about the educational opportunities of the Internet.

I am attracted by the close relationship between literature and historical context, so I always strive to develop interdisciplinary connections in this area. In addition, I try to go somewhere with my children outside of Moscow as often as possible: whether it's a sightseeing trip to another city or a two- or three-day hike. Communication outside the classroom is very important. As well as the fact that I am a teacher of school and university.

The only serious inconvenience is the need to constantly change the level of teaching. To be honest, sometimes you catch yourself thinking that your lesson on Hamlet or the Divine Comedy in the eighth or ninth grade is not much different from the seminar recently held in the first year on the same topic. But maybe it's not so bad? After all, there are methods of advanced learning, the main thing is not to get too carried away. There is one more inconvenience, alas, inevitable. I spend a lot of time doing extracurricular activities with children. In our "school of education" it is impossible to do otherwise. I would like to pay no less attention to students, especially since, I am deeply convinced of this, they need it no less than schoolchildren. For example, the experience of the associate professor of our department Arseniy Stanislavovich Dezhurov proves this well. But, unfortunately, there are only 24 hours in a day.

I can say that today I want my children to become teachers, but they must be very talented, outstanding, creative people - only such people should be engaged in our future. When, for example, I see a bright, interesting student, I always ask if he is going to work at the school. It's a shame when a cool philologist "wipes his pants" in the office. But now, alas, the salary of a teacher does not attract young people much.

• Specialty HAC RF10.01.03
• Number of pages 181

9) Chapter 1. R. Barth - theorist and historian of literature

9) §1. R. Barth in the context of postmodernism

45) §2. Aesthetics of R. Barth and the work of the Marquis de Sade

63) Chapter 2

70) § 1. J. Genette - historian of the French Baroque

91) §2. J. Genette and the history of the French novel

§3. J. Genette and the literature of modernism

Chapter 3. "The Critical Path" by Zh. Starobinsky

§1. Theory and Method: Program of Dialectical Criticism

§2. French literature in the assessment of J. Starobinsky

Recommended list of dissertations in the specialty "Literature of the peoples of foreign countries (with an indication of specific literature)", 10.01.03 VAK code

• Semiotics of Art in the Mirror of French Post-structuralism: Barthes and Baudrillard 2009, Candidate of Philosophical Sciences Emelyanova, Marina Alexandrovna

• The problem of the subject in poststructuralism: ontological aspect 2006, Doctor of Philosophy Dyakov, Alexander Vladimirovich

• Theoretical and methodological foundations for the analysis of political power in postmodernism: Based on the work of French thinkers of the second half of the 20th - early 21st centuries 2006, candidate of political sciences Alasania, Kira Yurievna

• The Problem of the Text - From Poetics to Cultural Anthropology: A Philosophical Analysis of the Concepts of the Russian Formal School and the Anglo-American "New Criticism" 1999, Candidate of Philosophical Sciences Gornykh, Andrey Anatolyevich

• Charles Baudelaire and the formation of literary and artistic journalism in France: the first half - the middle of the 19th century. 2000, candidate of philological sciences Solodovnikova, Tatyana Yurievna

Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic "French Literature in the "New Criticism": R. Barthes, J. Genette, J. Starobinsky"

Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Literature of the peoples of foreign countries (with an indication of specific literature)", Dremov, Mikhail Alexandrovich

List of references for dissertation research Candidate of Philological Sciences Dremov, Mikhail Alexandrovich, 2005

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Thesis - 480 rubles, shipping 10 minutes 24 hours a day, seven days a week and holidays

240 rub. | 75 UAH | $3.75 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Abstract - 240 rubles, delivery 1-3 hours, from 10-19 (Moscow time), except Sunday

Dremov Mikhail Alexandrovich. French Literature in "New Criticism": R. Barthes, J. Genette, J. Starobinsky: dissertation... Candidate of Philology: 10.01.03.- Moscow, 2005.- 181 p.: ill. RSL OD, 61 06-10/266

Introduction

9) Chapter 1. R. Barth - theorist and historian of literature

(9) 1. R. Barth in the context of postmodernism

(45) 2. Aesthetics of R. Barth and the work of the Marquis de Sade

(63) Chapter 2. The history of French literature in the criticism of J. Genette

(70) 1. J. Genette - French Baroque historian

(91) 2. J. Genette and the history of the French novel

(PO) 3. J. Genette and the literature of modernism

(130) Chapter 3. "The Critical Path" by Zh. Starobinsky

(130) 1. Theory and method: program of dialectical criticism

(151) 2. French literature in the assessment of Zh. Starobinsky

(173) Conclusion

(175) List of used literature

Introduction to work

Relevance of the topic. In the 20th century, for a long time, the domestic humanities were in relative isolation from the West. Acquaintance with the tendencies, directions, and schools that formed there was very limited and, as a rule, happened with a delay. When ideological prohibitions began to weaken, a mass of translated publications from the field of philosophy, history, sociology, philology, including literary criticism, fell upon the Russian reader, opening up broad prospects for research. The 1990s can be called a genuine "breakthrough", but after a short time it became clear that the breakthrough in the publication did not become a breakthrough in science. On the contrary, the current situation can be characterized as a crisis. The traditions and experience of Russian science, which experienced constant ideological oppression at the stage of Soviet history, were called into question, if not completely rejected. As a result, critical consciousness was weakened: on the one hand, it lost its former support, and on the other hand, it experienced the strongest influence of postmodern relativism. Skepticism gave way to enthusiasm, "new" sometimes became synonymous with "true". Thus, despite the fact that the new currents received a wide response from us, scientific reflection continued to develop mainly in the direction set by the object under study, without acquiring a critical distance and, as a result, naturally turning into epigonism. Crisis tendencies have not been overcome so far. They are most evident in the fields of philosophy and history, but also in literary criticism, which, of course, does not develop in isolation. The most clear and convincing proof of this is the situation in the area where science directly interacts with society - the situation with school textbooks in the humanities, which over the past decade as a whole have received a consistently negative assessment.

The situation outlined above can be characterized as the dominance of "ideological fashion", the degree of negative influence of which is comparable to ideological prohibitions, and possibly even surpasses them.

The French "new criticism" of the 50s - 70s is one of the most striking phenomena in Western literary criticism of the second half of the 20th century. Of course, this phrase is more often used in relation to the Anglo-American "new criticism". However, despite its obvious relationship with the "new criticism" and the proximity of a number of theoretical postulates, the French "nouvelle critique" is an independent phenomenon. First, it arose some thirty years after the rise of the English "New Criticism" in a completely different historical and cultural situation. Secondly, representatives of the Russian formal school had perhaps a greater influence on it, as evidenced, for example, by a noticeable “tilt” towards narratological research. Thirdly, over its entire short century, French “new criticism”, unlike “new criticism”, was unable to gain a strong position in official “university” science and throughout its existence was perceived as an oppositional ideological trend.

Despite the variety of original theoretical and methodological concepts inherent in the "new criticism", acquaintance with it in our country for a long time went through the prism of Roland Barthes' work. It was this figure that turned out to be in the focus of “ideological fashion”, therefore, all the above-mentioned shortcomings are inherent in her perception. But if Barth's works were not subjected to proper critical analysis because of their popularity, then other trends and other representatives, even those published in translation, simply fell into their shadow. Meanwhile, the "new criticism" has become such a striking and powerful phenomenon in literary criticism that, of course, it deserves not enthusiastic praise and not sweeping denial, but a thorough critical study. French works

5 scientists must be evaluated in a historical perspective. It is impossible to confine ourselves to identifying "merits and demerits" - it is necessary, teaching the current state of critical thought, not only to attract everything positive, but also to overcome everything negative. For the movement of scientific thought forward, the “repulsion point” sometimes becomes more important than the “fulcrum”. The problem of the French “new criticism” is especially acute by the fact that the predominant attention paid in it to questions of theory comes into conflict with the principles of the Russian tradition of literary criticism, which required a concrete historical analysis of literary phenomena.

The degree of development of the problem. The current research indicates that in domestic science the level of theoretical formulation of problems associated with the French "new criticism" and the critical assessment of this phenomenon are low. Most of the papers are mainly of a review nature. Among them are the works of L.G. Andreev, N.F. Rzhevskaya, Z.I. Khovanskaya, G.K. Kosikov, I.P. Ilyin, S. NZenkin. In foreign literary criticism, the situation is somewhat better. Along with descriptive works dealing mainly with the problems of the history of structuralism 1 or, in general, French philosophy of the second half of the 20th century, as well as the work of R. Barthes, studies began to appear that analyzed the problems of the “new criticism” in the context of the pan-European historical and cultural process 4 . As for the historical and literary significance of studies of the "new criticism" devoted to French literature, this problem has not been posed in a complex way before.

Goalsand tasks research. This dissertation aims to determine the theoretical significance of the methods of "new criticism" and

1 Scholes R. Structuralism in Literature. An introduction. - Yale UP, 1974; Dosse F. Histoire du structuralisme. -
P., 1991.

2 Descombes V. Philosophie par gros temps. - P., 1989.

3 Lavers A. Roland Barthes: Structuralism and after. - L., 1982; Roger Ph. Roland Barthes, roman. - P., 1986;
Calvet L.-J. Roland Barthes. - P., 1990.

4 Compagnon A. Le demon de la theorie. - P., 1998.

the success of their practical application in the study of French literature. A large number of authors belonging to this area, its methodological heterogeneity and variety of theoretical concepts force us to narrow the subject of research. The focus will be on the works of three authors: R. Bart, J. Genette and J. Starobinsky. They are among the brightest representatives of the "new criticism", and their scientific work most closely matches the logic of this study. Roland Barthes was chosen as the head of the structural-semiotic direction and the ideological leader of the "new criticism" in general. The works of Gerard Genette make it possible to shift attention from the problems of theory and method to the results of their practical application in the field of research on the history of French literature. The methodological principles of Jean Starobinsky, whose work lies on the border of the subject of our study, enter into controversy with the main postulates of the "new criticism", and his works are an example of criticism of this phenomenon within the phenomenon itself. Thus, in order to achieve the goal in accordance with the intended logic of the study, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

conduct a comprehensive socio-philosophical, historical and literary analysis of R. Barth's work as a link between literary theory and the philosophy and culture of postmodernism;

to identify in the works of R. Barthes and J. Genette common historical and literary concepts and to check the possibility of reconstructing a variant of the history of French literature on their basis;

determine the main aesthetic criteria underlying the works of R. Bart, J. Genette and J. Starobinsky;

compare the results of research by R. Bart, J. Genette and J. Starobinsky in the field of French literature;

evaluate the theoretical and practical significance of R. Barth's criticism,

7 J. Jeiette and J. Starobinsky in the modern literary-critical context. At the heart of the dissertation research methodology there is a conviction that literature and criticism, being forms of social consciousness, are closely connected in their development with all sociocultural processes and are conditioned to the same extent by the evolution of social matter as any other forms. This approach assumes that the phenomena of literature and criticism are the result of the dialectical interaction of personality, history and cultural tradition. Excluding the possibility of immanent analysis, it requires taking into account the historical and cultural context and evaluating the phenomenon under study from the point of view of a historical perspective. Therefore, in methodological terms, the historical-theoretical and system-analytical approaches play a decisive role in the study.

Scientific novelty of the dissertation research consists in defining the relationship between literary theory and literary history in the New Criticism and revealing the inevitable limitations of a methodology that neglects history in favor of theory. In the dissertation research:

the direct conditionality of conceptual searches in the "new criticism" by the pan-European historical process is determined;

the ideological motives that determined the direction and nature of these searches were revealed;

the original version of the history of French literature in the works of representatives of the "new criticism" is explicated and its limitations are shown;

the contradictions within the "new criticism" itself and the productivity of a comparative study of the works of its representatives are revealed;

the need for a dialectical approach in the study of problems of literature and criticism was proved in the course of a critical analysis.

Theoretical and practical significance of the research. The results obtained by the dissertation student can be used in the development of the course "History of French Literature", "History of Foreign Criticism", "Modern Methods of Literary Analysis". The provisions and conclusions of the dissertation tayuke can be used in the study of the course of world literature, cultural studies, social philosophy.

Approbation dissertation research. results

The dissertation research was reflected in the author's publications, in reports and speeches at scientific conferences, in particular at the XI, XIII, XV, XVI and XVII Purishev readings, I and III conferences "Philological science in the XXI century: the view of the young". The dissertation was discussed at the Department of World Literature of the Moscow Pedagogical State University and recommended for defense.

Dissertation structure. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion and a list of references.

R. Barth in the context of postmodernism

Roland Barthes can be safely called the head of that trend in French literary criticism, which is usually called "new criticism". This does not mean that his ideas are so universal that they cover the entire problematic field of theory. However, for more than two decades they have had such an intense impact on the entire complex of the humanities, and above all on literary criticism, that it is Barth who should be taken as the ideologist of this movement. Of course, we are talking primarily about the structural-semiotic direction, including narratology and various kinds of “poetics” that claim to be universal, and also, at a later stage, about the method of deconstruction. However, the concept of "new criticism" can be interpreted not only in a narrow, semiotic sense, but also broadly - as a general movement of literary scholars and critics, including a number of schools and trends (thematic, genetic, sociological, psychoanalytic, structural-semiotic criticism), which have abandoned principles and methods of academic, "university" literary criticism. Barthes began to personify the "new criticism" from the moment when he had to enter into a public debate with the representative of the university literary criticism, Raymond Picard. Thus, the central position of Barthes in the system under study suggests that it is in his works that one should look for the main methodological ideas and approaches that determined the image of French literature in the “new criticism”. But first, a few preliminary remarks must be made.

First, despite the large number of works about Barthes both in foreign and domestic literary criticism5, it cannot be said that his work does not need further research. On the contrary, right now, apparently, a new, critical stage of this research should begin, connected with the fact that the fashion for postmodernism in science has passed6. And although postmodern ideas are still alive and have their supporters both in France and in the USA, there is less and less reason to attribute the epithet “modern” to this direction in science. It is not yet clear to anyone what the coming era in the humanities will be like - and will it be at all? - it is only clear that postmodernism in general and Barthes in particular can and should be looked at from a different time, comprehending the previous stage as completed.

Secondly, Barth's scientific specialization can be called differently. The well-known definition given by G.K. Kosikov - "semiologist, literary critic" - rather comes from the only official position that appeared only towards the end of his life as head of the department of literary semiology7. S.Kzenkin is forced, as he himself admits, to use the vague concept of "critic". But if we recognize Barth's right to be called a scientist, then, defining his scientific specialty, let's say briefly: Barth is a semiologist. However, it should be borne in mind that a number of his works (and not only those created in the genre of essays, but also the theoretical part of Mythologies, for example), dealing with the most general issues related to the functioning of sign systems, can be classified as philosophizing. It should also not be forgotten that Barthes's ideas had a great influence on the philosophy of postmodernism8, and the famous caricature in the circle of M. Foucault, C. Levi-Strauss and J. Lacan clearly indicates his belonging to the circle of philosophers. Barthes is not called a "philosopher" not because his work is too vague, but because the very concept of "philosopher" is blurred, which is usually replaced by the word "intellectual"9. To the least extent, Barthes is actually a literary critic and, by and large, is one only insofar as some of his articles and books are devoted to literary works10. He is interested in literature as a whole - as a sign system, since such an approach to literature made it possible to most clearly answer one of the key questions of the "new criticism" about what exactly is the "literariness of literature", i.e. subject of research in literature. Therefore, the method of research for Barthes has always turned out to be more important than the object of research itself, and all his appeals directly to texts were aimed primarily at illustrating one or another strategy of analysis. The most compelling example is the book S/Z, which provides an example of the practice of deconstruction. However, his other works, which are of a literary nature, are characterized by the same feature. It is no coincidence, for example, that Racine's dramaturgy was chosen as a full-fledged object of study: Barthes attacks the traditional patrimony of university criticism - the classics, the key figure of French national literature, the emblem of its "golden" age, thereby demonstrating the universality of the proposed structural method and at the same time hitting the enemy from the rear. The book "On Racine" in this sense is diametrically opposed to the subsequent interest in Philip Sollers (in fact, a creative union with him). The adherents of the old method would hardly have been able to analyze his novels; most likely, they would simply have denied them the status of literature. While Bart, “who was then developing his theory of writing, needed just such a writer as Sollers, who, in turn, needed such a mentor as Barth”11. However, can we admit that Barthes, as a researcher, takes an external position in relation to such a phenomenon of French literature as the “new new novel”? After all, he owes much of his birth to the ideas of Bart himself. On top of that, Sollers, like Barth, was engaged in literary theory, being the editor-in-chief and author of the Tel kel magazine, and, in turn, Barth's later works (for example, "Fragments of a Lover's Speech") are much closer in form to what is usually understood by the term "novel" than the novels of Sollers himself. In other words, in the case of Sollers and the "new new novel" as a whole, Barthes is not a student of literary history, but already an active participant in literary "politics", that is, the current literary process and the struggle of genre forms associated with it. Of course, his position in this struggle is determined by his views on the historical and literary process as a whole.

J. Genette - French Baroque historian

Was Genette's turn to the Baroque accidental or was it a natural one? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to remember that all actions of representatives of one or another scientific direction are sometimes motivated not so much by the logic of scientific research, but by the tactics of struggle on the cultural field and the desire to increase cultural capital (in Bourdieu's terminology). And from this point of view, the interest in the Baroque is absolutely justified. At the stage of inception and growth, the new method refers, on the one hand, to modern literature (which has already been discussed), since it can draw new ideas from new literary forms, and on the other hand, to those eras of the past that did not enjoy the attention of the dominant criticism, because its analytical tools could not cope with such material (and only having gained strength, at the stage of a decisive battle, “new criticism” turned to the material of its opponent). And for "university" criticism, the French Baroque has always been a problem.

For a long time, French literary criticism was dominated by a point of view, most accurately illustrated by the book of the master of "literary history" of France, Gustave Lanson, "History of French Literature. XVII century ”, in terms of which in book I“ Preparation of exemplary works ”of the baroque, only one small (25 pages) chapter with the characteristic title“ Lagging behind and lost the way ”was allotted. Classicism - the emblem of the century, its magnificent facade, represented by the idolized French "classics" (Corneille, Racine, Molière, Lafontaine, etc.) - for a long time eclipsed its immediate predecessors and contemporaries who did not fit into the framework

approved Boileau poetics. The most worthy of them, Spond and Agrippa d'Aubigné, were called upon to fill with their creativity that logical void that gaped between the Pleiades and Malerbe, but sometimes they were placed in the Renaissance section. The pretentious novel could not help but be perceived as having gone astray in a time of drama and high poetry. The poetry of the French Baroque, having no names equal to Gongora or Donne, was completely forgotten by readers and critics, and in the history of literature it firmly acquired the status of a weak member of the opposition "classicism / baroque", a kind of contrasting background against which the merits of classicism stood out even more. However, already in the time of Lanson (turn of the century), attempts were made (in the works of Msurio and E. Fagesh) to return the poetry of the French Baroque to the sphere of historical and literary research.

By the middle of the 20th century, there was a certain breakthrough associated with the release of the five-volume History of French Literature of the 17th Century by Antoine Adam120. Largely thanks to her, as Yu.B. Vipper, “a huge, previously ignored and dead weight historical and literary material was put into use”12. Adan made the basis of his research the method of concrete historical analysis, paying his attention primarily to the ideological and aesthetic achievements of the era, and it was thanks to him that Adan's works were highly appreciated by Soviet philological science. On the contrary, the works of Marcel Raymond and Jean Rousset, 22 who stood at the origins of the "new criticism", were reproached for formalism and decadence. But it is them that Genette will call the discoverers of the French Baroque123 and he will be absolutely right, because it is largely thanks to their findings in the poetic world of Baroque poetry that French criticism of the 60s. embraced a real passion for this era (and this is where the logic of scientific research will take place). In a number of his articles, some of their ideas will be developed, but in a corrected form.

In domestic literary criticism in the 50s - 60s. the problem of the French Baroque was developed quite actively, and the works of Yu.B. Vipper125. The focus was on the dispute over the temporal boundaries of the Baroque. But it never received the status of an epoch or at least an independent literary trend, since the task of identifying a single artistic system was not solved, and remained within the vague concept of “trends”. Implicitly expressed baroque tendencies were noted already in the middle of the 16th century, during the reign of the Renaissance, then they manifested themselves in the works of authors who, in general, can hardly be defined as baroque, including in the dramaturgy of classicism. The ups and downs of the Baroque that arose from time to time belonged to landmark phenomena, when competing aesthetic systems were either in the stage of decline or in the stage of initial formation (we are talking not only about the Renaissance and classicism, but also the problem of the so-called realistic tendencies in the literature of the 17th century), then they were directly dependent on the political situation in France, since bursts of baroque creativity (defined mainly as "reactionary", excluding libertin poets and the difficult to understand "grassroots" baroque) correlated with the time of the weakening of absolutism and, accordingly, classicism as its ideology . Baroque features received a rather vague description: baroque was called that which was as "contradictory" as possible and carried a crisis of the humanistic worldview, that which contradicted classicist poetics and did not fall into the category of realistic tendencies. And although the problems of periodization of the Baroque and its division into “secular” and “grassroots”, which were of interest to supporters of the concrete historical method, were far from the scope of Genette’s research, the conclusions he came to do not generally contradict the results of the work of Soviet scientists.

At the beginning of his journey, explaining the type of criticism he proposes, which he called “formalism” as a working term, Genette argues that it “opposes not a criticism of meaning (all criticism is a criticism of meaning), but such a criticism that confuses meaning and substance and neglects the role forms in the process of developing meaning. Such substances (or elsewhere in the essence), which can be defined as structures (forms) endowed with a meaning-forming function, will be the focus of Genette's attention. Thanks to them, the artistic features of the French Baroque will be outlined, and the study of their further fate in the history of French literature, up to the “new novel”, will, in fact, become the embodiment of his idea of ​​a “history of literary forms”127.

Theory and Method: Program of Dialectical Criticism

In the "Introduction" it was already said about the reasons for choosing the work of Jean Starobinsky for comparison with the works of his French contemporaries Roland Barthes and Gerard Genette. Being both inside and outside the "new critique" makes it possible to make the analysis as complete and correct as possible. Given the obvious historical and literary orientation of Starobinsky's works, we could immediately start comparing his views with the views of the French on those subjects in which their interests intersected. But the question of method cannot be ignored. Speaking in advance about some preference given to the criticism of the Swiss scientist, it is necessary to specify its reasons. What we see as the advantages of his method should be said directly. Therefore, the first paragraph will be entirely devoted to a comparison of the theoretical views of scientists.

Starobinsky builds a series of his “reflections on the theory of criticism” in the following way: “Notes on Structuralism” (1965), “Reflections on the Current State of Literary Criticism” (1971), “The Meaning of Interpretation” (1971-1972), “Literature. Text and Interpreter" (1974), "The Meaning of Literary History" (1975), "Criticism and Authority" (1977). This series clearly shows how, in accordance with the general context of French literary criticism, the problem of theory first arises in the mid-1960s, and how by the end of the 1970s. she fades. But the article “The Attitude of Criticism”, written in the “significant” year of 1967, should be recognized as the most significant. It is no coincidence that Starobinsky reworked it, proposing a new version thirty years later. And it is no coincidence that both versions were included in the collection prepared with his help, which was published in this year. The famous article by Jacques Derrida "Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the humanities" (Derrida J. L ecriture et la difference. - P., 1967. - P. 409-428), which is conventionally considered the manifesto of post-structuralism. Russia in 2002. And although the 1967 version was written during the period we are studying and is a direct replica of the scientist in the then-flared dispute between “university” and “new” criticism, supporters and opponents of the structuralist method, we will use the later version. It is noteworthy that the modern version not only transforms, but complements and expands the previous one. This indicates that the issue is still relevant, and the views of the critic have not changed significantly (already at this point he is strikingly different from Barth). Despite the continued debate about the problems of theory and the scientist's attentive attitude to them, they could not shake his positions. One way or another, Critique and Truth (1966) by Barthes and Poetics and History (1969) by Genette formed a single context with both versions. But since we are primarily interested in Starobinsky's position, the logic of our analysis will generally correspond to the logic of his article. This will require from us what we neglected above, namely, a detailed, scrupulous criticism of a single scientific text, commenting on each step in the scientist's reasoning. The task is greatly facilitated by a kind of modesty of the scientist: he does not invent new concepts and neglects fashionable terminology. You can feel freer and, for example, calmly use the words "work" and "text" as synonyms. The striking advantage of the scientific style of the Swiss scientist lies in his attention to words, in the case of science, to terms. It is known that any productive scientific dispute (that is, serving the search for truth, and not the solution of opportunistic problems) is possible only when the opponents agree on fundamental concepts. It is unlikely that Barthes' opponents even had the concept of writing, which he based his theory on, so the controversy between Barthes and Picard, as well as supporters of both, was primarily related not to science, but to the ideological struggle. As a result, the only positive

Starobinsky Zh. Poetry and knowledge: History of literature and culture. In 2 volumes - M.; 2002. The result of these disputes was that "in their course it was necessary to clearly formulate some theoretical positions" . The consequence of this "positioning" was a discussion about the problems of theory and method already within the "new criticism". It is with an analysis of the concepts of "theory", "method" and "criticism" that Starobinsky begins.

In comparison with the natural sciences in the humanities, the question of the definition given to the term is much more acute. It is known that for a number of key concepts (for example, "culture", "language", "word") there are dozens or even hundreds of definitions. In such a situation, in order not to get bogged down already at this stage and to move further, the researcher who proposes something new in the field of theory is, as a rule, inclined to give his own, “working” definition of the terms he uses, without waiting for their discussion in the scientific community. Or, avoiding clear formulations, rely on descriptiveness, hoping that the meaning will be clear from the general context. That's basically what Bart does. Starobinsky, on the other hand, takes a different path. Before determining what this or that concept is for him now, he seeks to show its historical development, thus overcoming the contradictions of the synchronic and diachronic approaches. This method, for example, is the basis of the articles "On the Concept of Imagination: Milestones of History"236 or "The Word "Civilization""237. That is why the conversation about the distinction between three concepts in the first version was supplemented in a later historical analysis of the very phenomenon of criticism, starting from the earliest stages of the development of society.

According to Starobinsky, the appeal to questions of theory and method was caused by an attempt by critics to bring the knowledge of literature closer to science. The interrelation of both concepts is clarified by the following definition of the method: “It is a theory in motion, proving its effectiveness, turning into

Starobinsky Zh. Decree. op. - T. I. - S. 478. Ibid. - S. 69-84. There. - S. 110-149 the art of finding "238. In other words, the method is an intermediate link between theory and practice. "Theory in motion" is nothing more than a reflection of the process of cognition, when abstract models are tested by practice and, according to its results, are preserved or transformed. But the same Starobinsky notes that, at least on French soil, the current theory of literature basically retains the features of ancient rhetorics and normative poetics. But Genette's program provides for the creation of a new "poetics of forms" precisely on the basis of classical rhetoric. And the problem that confronts him is the problem of the universality of such poetics. Only that theory can be recognized as true, which is capable of explaining all the experience that exists at the moment. Therefore, poetics must describe all existing forms. But, first, is it possible to study all the works that have already been created? Describing one plant, you can imagine the whole species. But in the literature, a significant part of the phenomena claims to be unique. And, secondly, any new work will require the inevitable adjustment of the entire theory. That is why Genette was forced to come up with the idea of ​​a virtual poetics that prevents new forms, but, as was shown above, it rejects the very existence of literature. As a result, if in the 60s. supporters of the theory could still only express cautious doubts about the possibility of its creation, today we can confidently say that this is impossible. Such a position is by no means pessimistic, just as the necessity of such poetics cannot be considered proven. Genette himself, as you know, was forced to base his theory on just one text - Proust's novel In Search of Lost Time, having previously, however, tried to justify its universality.

Starobinsky initially questions the possibility and necessity of creating a universal method. He draws attention to the fact that cases where a given method would guide the analysis of any work are actually rare. On the contrary, the method often does not precede the study, but is its result. But we cannot follow this, like ADSompanion239, to draw an unambiguous conclusion that the work dictates the method. This is not about preferring the singular to the detriment of the universal. When referring to a specific text, the researcher relies on previous experience. However, compliance with the given method casts doubt on the uniqueness of the text. It initially has resistance, the result of which is the correction of the method. This is the case when practice makes theory always in motion. “In the course of experience or in the event of a conflict of different theories, a critique of the method not provided for by the method itself comes into play”240. The method serves as a critique of the text, but the text, in turn, is nothing more than a "criticism of the method." Thus, Starobinsky makes an attempt to identify the dialectical links between literature and criticism. Let's see if the validity of this hypothesis is confirmed in the course of further analysis.

The problem of dialectics has already been raised during the discussion of this topic. However, it was about a motionless dialectic, in which the confrontation of opposites leads not to development, but to endless mutual transformation. Turning to dialectics is inevitable for a researcher who is faced with an objective contradiction. An example of such an appeal is the concept of "writing" in Barthes. He rightly argues that as long as the reader does not interact with the text, it is, in fact, a hollow form. Therefore, the process of reading is at the same time the process of writing, since only at this moment the text “comes to life”, gaining its existence as an embodied plurality of meanings. Thus, in the act of writing, all

Companion A. Demon of theory.-M., 2001. Starobinsky Zh. Decree. op.-S. 21. hitherto opposite practices of interaction with the text. But the logic of this unity is based on an immovable dialectic: “This is how the word circles around the book: reading, writing - all literature alternately becomes the object of their desire. Were there not enough writers who started writing just because they had read something before? And are there not enough critics who read only to be able to write? ... Criticism is only one of the moments of the history that we are now entering and which leads us to unity - to the truth of writing”241. Such a path leads nowhere: the mutual floundering of reading and writing has no way out into any of the realities - neither psychological, nor social, nor aesthetic. In other words, writing and reading, and after them literature and writing, lose all purpose and all meaning. The meaning of both will be announced by Barthes later - pleasure and enjoyment. Perhaps such meanings should be considered as belonging to the realm of aesthetics. But even if we agree with the statement (requiring, however, proof), according to which the existence of literature is conditioned by the need for "aesthetic pleasure", then it cannot be understood in such a simplified, one-sided, primitive way. The aesthetic experience of the text, understood in this way, could not avoid subsequent eroticization, which only emphasized the futility of the proposed concept. “To read means to desire a work, to yearn to become it... To go from reading to criticism means to change the very object of desire, it means to desire not a work, but one's own language”242. Critical practice turns out to be closed. But, despite the objections, we still note that Barthes is also inclined to bring the work of the writer and critic together - and not only bring together, but also identify.

To narrow the search results, you can refine the query by specifying the fields to search on. The list of fields is presented above. For example:

You can search across multiple fields at the same time:

logical operators

The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all the elements in the group:

research development

Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values ​​in the group:

study OR development

Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:

study NOT development

Search type

When writing a query, you can specify the way in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search based on morphology, without morphology, search for a prefix, search for a phrase.
By default, the search is based on morphology.
To search without morphology, it is enough to put the "dollar" sign before the words in the phrase:

$ study $ development

To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:

study *

To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:

" research and development "

Search by synonyms

To include synonyms of a word in the search results, put a hash mark " # " before a word or before an expression in brackets.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthesized expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one was found.
Not compatible with no-morphology, prefix, or phrase searches.

# study

grouping

Parentheses are used to group search phrases. This allows you to control the boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:

Approximate word search

For an approximate search, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word in a phrase. For example:

bromine ~

The search will find words such as "bromine", "rum", "prom", etc.
You can optionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1, or 2. For example:

bromine ~1

The default is 2 edits.

Proximity criterion

To search by proximity, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:

" research development "~2

Expression relevance

To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the sign " ^ " at the end of an expression, and then indicate the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the given expression.
For example, in this expression, the word "research" is four times more relevant than the word "development":

study ^4 development

By default, the level is 1. Valid values ​​are a positive real number.

Search within an interval

To specify the interval in which the value of some field should be, you should specify the boundary values ​​in brackets, separated by the operator TO.
A lexicographic sort will be performed.

Such a query will return results with the author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in an interval, use square brackets. Use curly braces to escape a value.