Definition of the concept of psychologism in literature. Psychologism in fiction What defines psychologism

§ 2. The problem of art

psychologism: theoretical aspects

“Psychologism is a fairly complete, detailed and deep depiction of the feelings, thoughts and experiences of a fictional personality ( literary character) with the help of specific means of literature,” notes A.B. Yesin. “The study of mental life in its contradictions and depths,” defines psychologism L.Ya. Ginzburg, by the spiritual life of a character, means “the dynamic coexistence of different levels, different planes of conditioning,” and the hero’s behavior. V.V. Companion considers psychologism not as a technique, but as a property of fiction, including a reflection of the author’s psychology. The above judgments do not exhaust the variety of interpretations, but serve as evidence of the ambiguity of approaches to the problem of psychologism in Soviet literary criticism of the 70s and 80s. and the presence of at least broad and narrow meanings of this term.

For example, A. Jesuitov reduces the concept of psychologism to three main meanings:

"1)<…> generic sign of word art, its organic property, evidence of artistry...;

2) <…> result artistic creativity < ...> expression and reflection of the psychology of the author himself, his characters and, more broadly, social psychology (class, estate, social group, era, etc.), which in turn is revealed through the personality of the artist and the images of heroes created by him<…>;

3) <…>conscious and defining aesthetic principle<…>organic unity of psychologism as a subject and psychologism as a result of art<… >acts as a special, primary and immediate goal and task of artistic creativity. The main and direct object of reflection and reproduction is precisely human psychology, which acts as a kind of intrinsic value, and psychologism is a special and purposeful development of methods and forms of its embodiment and disclosure (psychological analysis) ... ".

Researchers proposed to distinguish between the psychology of the author, the reader and the hero, most often understanding “by psychologism... the study of the mental life of heroes in its deepest contradictions.”

The complexity of the categorical definition turned out to be associated with the formal and substantive qualities of psychologism. And if the vast majority of literary scholars (including A.I. Pavlovsky, F.M. Khatipov, A.B. Esin) saw in it a way of artistic depiction of the inner world of heroes, then difficulties arose when trying to determine its place in the modern system of theoretical literary concepts and in the multi-level system of the work. Since the scope of consideration included components of objective representation (portraits, psychologized landscapes and details) and “that which has neither objectivity nor visual representation - the reproduction of the psychology of characters”, this layer of the work was classified as style (A.B. Esin ), figurative content (I.I. Vinogradov), content-formal qualities (S.I. Kormilov, A.N. Andreev).

Thus, the difficulties in creating a unified concept of literary psychologism were due to (1) confusion of the concepts “psychologism”, “ psychological analysis", "psychological image" ; (2) a categorical definition of psychologism as an element, level or quality of a work of art; (3) the unclear correlation of psychologism with the “rhetorical triangle” (author – hero – reader).

A comparison of works on the problem of psychologism in the literature showed:

• · lack of unity in theoretical approaches;
• · greater elaboration of issues of individual author’s psychologism;
• · the greatest study of literary psychologism of the 19th century (unity of approaches, interpretations of its author’s variants);
• · lack of works of a historical and typological nature devoted to the psychologism of the 20th century. and the dynamics of psychologism in world literature.

The new look of artistic psychologism can be comprehended by studying its variants in the works of individual writers and then by comparing them (in this case, special attention should be paid to the phenomenon of artistic psychologism in the literature of the twentieth century). It seems that when developing this problem, we should (1) take into account those patterns and qualitative leaps in artistic development that marked the twentieth century, and (2) develop new research algorithms for analyzing the psychological content of the text.

We offer working definition: artistic psychologism – artistic-figurative, visual-expressive reconstruction and actualization of a person’s inner life, determined by the author’s value orientation, his ideas about personality and communication strategy. Under psychological image we will understand artistic study of the physiological sphere (feelings, experiences, states) of a character and his personal experience, extending into the realm of mental and spiritual.

N.V. Zababurova, a researcher of the French psychological novel, proposed a comprehensive approach to the study of psychologism, implying a level-by-level analysis of the work:

1) type psychological issues. It reflects the influence of extraliterary (socio-historical, philosophical, scientific) and literary ( literary traditions, aesthetic concept a certain literary movement to which the writer belongs, etc.) factors that determine the worldview and characteristics of the author’s artistic thinking. This issue largely determines the genre design of the work, which is essential for the nature of psychologism;

2) the concept of personality inherent in a given era and social environment (realized in artistic content and forms of embodiment of inner life);

3) artistic system and creative method (the historical typology of forms of artistic psychologism correlates with the evolution of creative methods);

4) level of poetics.

One can challenge the algorithmic feasibility of N.V.’s approach. Zababurova, but it is quite obvious that the productivity of the analysis of the psychologism of a particular work is directly related to the research focus on integrity(A.P. Skaftymov, Yu.M. Lotman, M.M. Girshman, A.N. Andreev) literary text and its consideration. Systemic nature psychologism opposes the principles of its fragmentary study. Therefore, as an alternative to it, the so-called philological analysis , which “involves consideration of a literary text in the totality of all its sides, components and levels.” The objectives of such analysis were formulated by V.A. Maslova as follows: 1) identify the specificity of individual elements of the work and their integrity; 2) combine linguistic and literary approaches to the text; 3) correlate it “both with the author who created this text, and with the reader of this text, for whom the text was created.”

Based on the idea of ​​a qualitative modification of psychologism (disintegration of character, chronotopic, symbolic, mythological ways of identifying the psychology of the hero) in artistic prose In modern times, one can choose a research path that allows one to identify psychological specificity at various levels of a work and in their correlation (system).

Following R. Ingarden, who proposed considering the aesthetic subject and emotional-contemplative experience in a “qualitative complex”, we believe it is natural to analyze the psychological content of the text from the point of view of functional significance plans of image, expression and emotional impact on the recipient, in the system “author – text – reader” ». In this case, the perceiver is focused not on “direct empathy arising from coexistence with the depicted objects,” but on a deep intellectual-emotional aesthetic experience (Einfühlung, “feeling”), based on the combination of many artistic qualities into one whole. This approach is also due to the new scientific paradigm of the 20th century, which can be applied not only to psychologism not only of the 20th century, but also to the 18th–19th centuries.

Thus, in the study of the psychologism of a work of art, it seems necessary: ​​1) to take into account the complexity (systematic nature) of the nature of psychologism; 2) correlate the author’s, character’s and reader’s plans; 3) comply with the requirement of isomorphism of the text and methods of its research, allowing for the integration of literary, philosophical, and psychological methods.

Questions and tasks

1 slice My attitude towards what I read (general).

• · How did I feel?
• · What associations did it evoke?
• · Whose side are my sympathies on? Etc.

2 cut. Analysis of the hero’s personality at the following stages:

• · Feelings and how does the author convey them?
• · Thoughts and how does the author convey them to the reader?
• · The hero’s experiences and internal doubts?
• · Gestures?
• · Physiognomy? Etc.

3 slice By what means of fiction does the author achieve a holistic perception of the hero’s personality? What is this personality like?

4 slice Symbolism of the work.

5 cut. The main conflicts of the work.

6 cut Psychological atmosphere (tension, tension, hidden aggressiveness)

7 cut. General laws of psychology (for example, the dialogism of the consciousness of youth of the 40s and 60s of the 19th century in I. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons”).

In some specific cases, the reverse path of conducting a psychological analysis of a work of art is possible.

6. Start building a vocabulary of the concepts covered in the course. Choose those concepts that, in your opinion, could be actively used in practical text analysis.

Jesuitov, A. Problems of psychologism in literature / A. Jesuitov // Problems of psychologism in Soviet literature. – L.: Len. department; Science, 1970. – pp. 38–44.

Esin, A.B. Russian psychologism classical literature: Book for teachers / A.B. Esin. – M.: Education, 1988. – 174 p.

Kompaneets, V.V. Artistic psychologism in Soviet literature (1920s) / V.V. Kompaneets. – L.: Science, Leningrad. department, 1980. – 113 p.

Ginzburg, L.Ya. About psychological prose / L.Ya. Ginzburg. – M.: INTRADA, 1999. – 415 p.

Esin, A.B. Psychologism of Russian classical literature: A book for teachers / A.B. Esin. – M.: Education, 1988. – P. 18.

Ginzburg, L.Ya. About psychological prose / L.Ya. Ginzburg. – M.: Sov. writer, 1971. – P. 286; 379.

Kompaneets, V.V. Artistic psychologism in Soviet literature (1920s) / V.V. Kompaneets. – L.: Science, Leningrad. department, 1980. – P. 12.

Jesuitov, A. Problems of psychologism in literature / A. Jesuitov // Problems of psychologism in Soviet literature. – L.: Len. department; Science, 1970. – pp. 39–40.

Andreev, A.N. Holistic analysis of a literary work: textbook. aid for students universities / A.N.Andreev. – Minsk: NMCentr, 1995. – P. 81.

Kormilov, S.I. Theoretical system of G.N. Pospelov and the problem modern system theoretical and literary concepts / S.I. Kormilov // Vest. Moscow un-ta. Ser. 9. Philology. – 1995. – No. 3. – P. 8.

The concept of "psychologism in fiction"was studied in detail by A.B. Yesin. Let us consider the main provisions of his concept of psychologism in literature. In literary criticism, “psychologism” is used in a broad and narrow sense. In a broad sense, psychologism refers to the universal property of art to reproduce human life, human characters, social and psychological types. In a narrow sense, psychologism is understood as a property that is characteristic not of all literature, but only of a certain part of it. Psychological writers depict the inner world of a person especially vividly and vividly, in detail, reaching a special depth in his artistic development. We will talk about psychologism in the narrow sense. Let us immediately make a reservation that the absence of psychologism in a work in this narrow sense is not a disadvantage or an advantage, but an objective property. It’s just that in literature there are psychological and non-psychological methods of artistic exploration of reality, and they are equivalent from an aesthetic point of view.

Psychologism is a fairly complete, detailed and deep depiction of the feelings, thoughts and experiences of a literary character using specific means of fiction. This is a principle of organizing the elements of an artistic form in which visual means are aimed mainly at revealing the mental life of a person in its diverse manifestations.

Like any cultural phenomenon, psychologism does not remain unchanged in all centuries; its forms are historically mobile. Moreover, psychologism did not exist in literature from the first days of its life - it arose at a certain historical moment. The inner world of a person in literature did not immediately become a full-fledged and independent object of depiction. In the early stages, culture and literature did not yet need psychologism, because Initially, the object of literary depiction became what first caught the eye and seemed most important; visible, external processes and events, clear in themselves and not requiring comprehension and interpretation. In addition, the value of the event taking place was immeasurably higher than the value of the experience about it (V. Kozhinov. Plot, plot, composition // Theory of Literature: In 3 volumes - M., 1964) notes: “A fairy tale conveys only certain combinations of facts , reports on the most basic events and actions of the character, without delving into his special internal and external gestures... All this is ultimately explained by the underdevelopment, simplicity of the individual’s mental world, as well as the lack of genuine interest in this object.” It cannot be said that literature at this stage was not at all concerned with feelings and experiences. They were depicted insofar as they were manifested in external actions, speech, changes in facial expressions and gestures. For this purpose, traditional, repeating formulas were used to indicate the emotional state of the hero. They indicate an unambiguous connection between experience and its external expression. To denote sadness in Russian fairy tales and epics, the formula “He became sad, he hung his head violently” is widely used. The very essence of human experiences was one-dimensional - one state of grief, one state of joy, etc. In terms of external expression and content, the emotions of one character are no different from the emotions of another (Priam experiences exactly the same grief as Agamemnon, Dobrynya triumphs in victory in the same way as Volga).

So, in artistic culture early eras psychologism not only did not exist, but could not have existed, and this is natural. In the public consciousness, a specific ideological and artistic interest in the human personality, individuality, and its unique position in life has not yet arisen.

Psychologism in literature arises when a culture recognizes a unique human personality as a value. This is impossible in those conditions when a person’s value is completely determined by his social, public, professional position, and his personal point of view on the world is not taken into account and is assumed to even be non-existent. Because the ideological and moral life of society is completely governed by a system of unconditional and infallible norms (religion, church). In other words, there is no psychologism in cultures based on the principles of authoritarianism.

In European literature, psychologism arose in the era of late antiquity (the novels of Heliodorus “Ethiopica”, Long’s “Daphnis and Chloe”). The story about the feelings and thoughts of the characters is already a necessary part of the story; at times the characters try to analyze their inner world. The true depth of the psychological image is not yet there: simple mental states, weak individualization, a narrow range of feelings (mainly emotional experiences). The main technique of psychologism is inner speech, constructed according to the laws of external speech, without taking into account the specifics of psychological processes. Ancient psychologism did not develop: in the 4th – 6th centuries, ancient culture died. The artistic culture of Europe had to develop, as it were, anew, starting from a lower level than antiquity. Culture European Middle Ages was a typical authoritarian culture, its ideological and moral basis were the strict norms of a monotheistic religion. Therefore, in the literature of this period we practically do not encounter psychologism.

The situation changes fundamentally during the Renaissance, when the inner world of man is actively mastered (Boccaccio, Shakespeare). The value of the individual in the cultural system has become especially high since the mid-18th century, and the question of individual self-determination is acutely raised (Rousseau, Richardson, Stern, Goethe). The reproduction of the feelings and thoughts of the heroes becomes detailed and ramified, the inner life of the heroes turns out to be saturated with moral and philosophical searches. The technical side of psychologism is also enriched: the author’s psychological narrative, psychological detail, compositional forms of dreams and visions, psychological landscape, internal monologue with attempts to construct it according to the laws of internal speech appear. With the use of these forms, complex psychological states become accessible to literature, it becomes possible to analyze the area of ​​the subconscious, to artistically embody complex mental contradictions, i.e. take the first step towards the artistic mastery of the “dialectics of the soul.”

However, sentimental and romantic psychologism, for all its development and even sophistication, also had its limit associated with an abstract, insufficiently historical understanding of personality. Sentimentalists and romantics thought of a person outside of his diverse and complex connections with the surrounding reality. Psychologism reaches its true flowering in the literature of realism.

Let's look at the techniques in the literature. Main psychological techniques are:

System of narrative-compositional forms

Internal monologue;

Psychological detail;

Psychological portrait;

Psychological landscape;

Dreams and visions

Double characters;

Default.

System of narrative-compositional forms. These forms include the author's psychological narrative, psychological analysis, first-person narrative, and letters.

The author's psychological narration is a third-person narration, which is conducted by a “neutral”, “outsider” narrator. This is a form of storytelling that allows the author, without any restrictions, to introduce the reader into the inner world of the character and show it in the most detail and depth. For the author, there are no secrets in the hero’s soul - he knows everything about him, can trace in detail the internal processes, comment on the hero’s self-analysis, talk about those mental movements that the hero himself cannot notice or which he does not want to admit to himself.

“He was out of breath; his whole body was apparently trembling. But it was not the trembling of youthful timidity, it was not the sweet horror of the first confession that took possession of him: it was passion that beat within him, strong and heavy, a passion similar to anger and, perhaps, akin to it...” (“Fathers and Sons” by Turgenev).

At the same time, the narrator can psychologically interpret the hero’s external behavior, his facial expressions and movements. Third-person narration provides unprecedented opportunities to include a variety of forms of psychological depiction in a work: internal monologues, public confessions, excerpts from diaries, letters, dreams, visions, etc. This form of storytelling makes it possible to depict many characters psychologically, which is almost impossible to do with any other method of storytelling. A first-person story or a novel in letters, constructed as an imitation of an intimate document, provide much less opportunity to diversify the psychological image, to make it deeper and more comprehensive.

The third-person narrative form did not immediately begin to be used in literature to reproduce the inner world of a person. Initially, there was a kind of ban on intrusion into the intimate world of someone else’s personality, even into the inner world of a character invented by the author himself. Perhaps literature did not immediately master and consolidate this artistic convention– the author’s ability to read in the souls of his characters as easily as in his own. There was no task yet for the author to depict someone else's consciousness in the full sense.

Until the end of the 18th century. for the psychological depiction, mostly non-authored subjective forms of narration were used: letters and notes of a traveler (“Dangerous Liaisons” by Laclau, “Pamela” by Richardson, “The New Heloise” by Rousseau, “Letters of a Russian Traveler” by Karamzin, “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” by Radishchev) and first-person narrative (“Sentimental Journey” by Sterne, “Confession” by Rousseau). These are the so-called non-authorial subjective forms of narration. These forms made it possible to most naturally communicate about the internal state of the characters, to combine verisimilitude with sufficient completeness and depth of disclosure of the inner world (the person himself talks about his thoughts and experiences - a situation that is quite possible in real life).

From the point of view of psychologism, first-person narration retains two limitations: the inability to equally fully and deeply show the inner world of many characters and the monotony of the psychological image. Even an internal monologue does not fit into a first-person narrative, because a real internal monologue is when the author “overhears” the hero’s thoughts in all their naturalness, unintentionality and rawness, and a first-person narrative presupposes a certain self-control, self-report.

Psychological analysis generalizes the picture of the inner world and highlights the main thing in it. The hero knows less about himself than the narrator, and does not know how to express the combination of sensations and thoughts so clearly and accurately. The main function of psychological analysis is the analysis of fairly complex psychological states. In another work, the experience can be indicated in summary. And this is characteristic of non-psychological writing, which should not be confused with psychological analysis.

Here, for example, is an image of the moral shifts in the consciousness of Pierre Bezukhov that occurred during captivity. “He received that peace and self-satisfaction for which he had previously strived in vain. For a long time in his life he searched with different sides this calmness, agreement with oneself... he looked for this in philanthropy, in Freemasonry, in the dispersion of social life, in wine, in the heroic feat of self-sacrifice, in romantic love for Natasha; he sought this through thought - and all these searches and attempts deceived him. And he, without thinking about it himself, received this peace and this agreement with himself only through the horror of death, through deprivation and through what he understood in Karataev.

The hero's internal monologue conveys thoughts and the emotional sphere. The work most often presents the external speech of the characters, but there is also internal speech in the form of an internal monologue. These are, as it were, thoughts and experiences overheard by the author. There are such types of internal monologue as reflected internal speech (psychological introspection) and stream of consciousness. “Stream of consciousness” creates the illusion of an absolutely chaotic, disordered movement of thoughts and experiences. The pioneer in world literature of this type of internal monologue was L. Tolstoy (the thoughts of Anna Karenina on the way to the station before committing suicide). The stream of consciousness began to be actively used only in the literature of the 20th century.

Psychological detail. With the non-psychological principle of writing, external details are completely independent; they directly embody the features of a given artistic content. In Nekrasov’s poem “Who Lives Well in Rus',” pictures of everyday life are given in the memoirs of Savely and Matryona. The process of remembering is psychological state, and the writer-psychologist always reveals it exactly as such - in detail and with its inherent patterns. Nekrasov’s work is completely different: in the poem these fragments are psychological only in form (memories); in fact, we have a series of external pictures that are almost in no way correlated with the processes of the inner world.

Psychologism, on the contrary, makes external details work to depict the inner world. External details accompany and frame psychological processes. Objects and events enter into the flow of thoughts of the characters, stimulate thought, are perceived and emotionally experienced. One of the striking examples is the old oak tree, which Andrei Bolkonsky thinks about at different periods of calendar time and his life. The oak becomes a psychological detail only when it is the impression of Prince Andrei. Not only objects can be psychological details outside world, but also events, actions, external speech. A psychological detail motivates the hero’s internal state, shapes his mood, and influences his thinking.

External psychological details include a psychological portrait and landscape.

Every portrait is characteristic, but not every portrait is psychological. It is necessary to distinguish the actual psychological portrait from other types of portrait description. There is nothing of psychologism in the portraits of officials and landowners in Gogol’s “Dead Souls.” These portrait descriptions indirectly indicate stable, permanent character traits, but do not give an idea of ​​​​the inner world, the feelings and experiences of the hero in at the moment, the portrait shows stable personality traits that do not depend on changes in psychological states. The portrait of Pechorin in Lermontov’s novel can be called psychological: “I noticed that he did not wave his arms - a sure sign of some secrecy of character”; his eyes did not laugh when he laughed: “this is a sign of either an evil disposition, or deep, constant sadness,” etc.

The landscape in a psychological narrative indirectly recreates the movement of the character’s mental life; the landscape becomes his impression. In Russian prose of the 19th century, the recognized master of psychological landscape is I.S. Turgenev, The most subtle and poetic internal states are conveyed precisely through the description of pictures of nature. These descriptions create a certain mood, which is perceived by the reader as the mood of the character.

Turgenev achieved the highest skill in using landscapes for the purposes of psychological depiction. The most subtle and poetic internal states are conveyed by Turgenev precisely through the description of pictures of nature. These descriptions create a certain mood, which is perceived by the reader as the mood of the character.

“So Arkady thought... and while he was thinking, spring took its toll. Everything around was golden green, everything was wide and softly agitated and shiny under the quiet breath of a warm breeze, everything - trees, bushes and grass; Everywhere the larks flowed in endless, ringing streams; the lapwings either screamed, hovering over the low-lying meadows, or silently ran over the hummocks... Arkady looked and looked, and, little by little, his thoughts disappeared... He threw off his greatcoat and looked at his father so cheerfully, like a young boy, that he hugged him again "

Dreams and visions. Such plot forms, like dreams, visions, hallucinations, can be used in literature for a variety of purposes. Their initial function is the introduction of fantastic motifs into the narrative (the dreams of heroes of the ancient Greek epic, prophetic dreams in folklore). In general, the forms of dreams and visions are needed here only as plot episodes that influence the course of events, anticipate them; they are connected with other episodes, but not with other forms of depicting thoughts and experiences. In the system of psychological writing, these traditional forms have a different function, as a result of which they are organized differently. Unconscious and semi-conscious forms of a person’s inner life begin to be considered and depicted precisely as psychological states. These psychological fragments of the narrative begin to correlate not with episodes of external, plot action, but with other psychological states of the hero. A dream, for example, is motivated not by previous events in the plot, but by the previous emotional state of the hero. Why does Telemachus in the Odyssey see Athena in a dream, commanding him to return to Ithaca? Because previous events made it possible and necessary for him to appear there. Why does Dmitry Karamazov see a crying child in his dreams? Because he is constantly looking for his moral “truth”, painfully trying to formulate the “idea of ​​the world”, and it appears to him in a dream, like Mendeleev’s table of elements.

Double characters. Psychologism changes the function of double characters. In a non-psychological style system, they were needed for the plot, for the development of external action. Thus, the appearance of a kind of double of Major Kovalev in Gogol’s “The Nose” - a work that is moral in its themes and non-psychological in style - constitutes the mainspring of the plot action. Otherwise, doubles are used in psychological storytelling. The devil-double of Ivan Karamazov is no longer connected in any way with the plot action. It is used exclusively as a form of psychological depiction and analysis of Ivan’s extremely contradictory consciousness, his extreme tension ideological and moral quest. The devil exists only in Ivan’s mind; he appears when the hero’s mental illness worsens and disappears when Alyosha appears. The devil is endowed with his own ideological and moral position, his own way of thinking. As a result, a dialogue is possible between Ivan and him, and not at the everyday level, but at the level of philosophical and moral issues. The devil is the embodiment of some side of Ivan’s consciousness, their internal dialogue is his internal dispute with himself.

Reception of default. This technique appeared in the literature of the second half of the 19th century, when psychologism became quite familiar to the reader, who began to look in the work not for external plot entertainment, but for the depiction of complex mental states. The writer is silent about the processes of the hero’s inner life and emotional state, forcing the reader to carry out a psychological analysis himself. In writing, default is usually indicated by an ellipsis.

“They looked at each other in silence for a minute. Razumikhin remembered this moment all his life. Raskolnikov’s burning and intent gaze seemed to intensify with every moment, penetrating into his soul, into his consciousness. Suddenly Razumikhin shuddered. Something strange seemed to pass between them... Some idea slipped through, like a hint; something terrible, ugly and suddenly understandable on both sides... Razumikhin turned pale as death.” Dostoevsky does not finish speaking, he is silent about the most important thing - what “happened between them”: that suddenly Razumikhin realized that Raskolnikov was a murderer, and Raskolnikov realized that Razumikhin understood this.

In works imbued with psychologism, there may be interpenetrations, mutual transitions of different forms of speech - internal, external, narrative.

“And suddenly Raskolnikov clearly remembered the whole scene of the third day at the gate; he realized that, besides the janitors, there were several other people standing there at that time... So, therefore, how all this horror of yesterday was resolved. The most terrible thing was to think that he really almost died, almost destroyed himself because of such an insignificant circumstance.”

When analyzing psychological details, you should definitely keep in mind that in different works they can play a fundamentally different role.

In one case, the psychological details are few in number and are of a service, auxiliary nature - then we are talking about elements of a psychological image; their analysis can, as a rule, be neglected.

In another case, the psychological image occupies a significant volume in the text, acquires relative independence and becomes extremely important for understanding the content of the work. In this case, a special artistic quality appears in the work, called psychologism.

Psychologism is the development and depiction of the hero’s inner world through the means of fiction: his thoughts, experiences, desires, emotional states, etc., and the depiction is distinguished by detail and depth.

There are three main forms of psychological imagery, to which all specific techniques for reproducing the inner world ultimately come down.

Two of these three forms were theoretically identified by I.V. Strakhov: “The main forms of psychological analysis can be divided into the depiction of characters “from the inside” - that is, through artistic knowledge of the inner world characters, expressed through inner speech, images of memory and imagination; to psychological analysis “from the outside”, expressed in psychological interpretation a writer of expressive features of speech, speech behavior, facial expressions and other means of external manifestation of the psyche.”

Let’s call the first form of psychological depiction direct, and the second indirect, since in it we learn about the hero’s inner world not directly, but through external symptoms of a psychological state.

We will talk about the first form a little lower, but for now we will give an example of the second, indirect form of psychological image, which was especially widely used in literature at the early stages of development:

A gloomy cloud of sorrow covered Achilles' face.

He filled both handfuls with ashes and sprinkled them on his head:

The young man's face turned black, his clothes turned black, and he himself

With a great body covering the great space, in the dust

He was stretched out, tearing out his hair, and beating himself on the ground.

Homer. "Iliad". Per V.A. Zhukovsky

Before us is a typical example of an indirect form of psychological depiction, in which the author depicts only the external symptoms of a feeling, without ever invading directly into the consciousness and psyche of the hero.

But the writer has another opportunity, another way to inform the reader about the thoughts and feelings of the character - with the help of naming, an extremely brief designation of those processes that take place in the inner world.

We will call this method summative designating. A.P. Skaftymov wrote about this technique, comparing the features of psychological depiction in Stendhal and Tolstoy: “Stendhal mainly follows the path of verbal designation of feelings. Feelings are named, but not shown,” and Tolstoy traces in detail the process of feeling through time and thereby recreates it with greater vividness and artistic power.

So, the same psychological state can be reproduced using different forms of psychological image. You can, for example, say: “I was offended by Karl Ivanovich because he woke me up” - this will be a summary form. You can depict external signs of resentment: tears, frowning eyebrows, stubborn silence, etc. - This is an indirect form. But it is possible, as Tolstoy did, to reveal the internal state using a direct form of psychological image: “Suppose,” I thought, “I am small, but why does he bother me? Why doesn’t he kill flies near Volodya’s bed? How many are there? No, Volodya is older than me, and I am smaller than everyone else: that’s why he torments me. “That’s all he thinks about all his life,” I whispered, “how I can make trouble.” He sees very well that he woke me up and scared me, but he acts as if he doesn’t notice... nasty man! And the robe, and the cap, and the tassel - how disgusting!”

Naturally, each form of psychological image has different cognitive, visual and expressive capabilities. In the works of writers whom we usually call psychologists - Lermontov, Tolstoy, Flaubert, Maupassant, Faulkner and others - as a rule, all three forms are used to embody mental movements. But the leading role in the system of psychologism is, of course, played by the direct form - the direct reconstruction of the processes of a person’s inner life.

Let us now briefly get acquainted with the basic techniques of psychologism, with the help of which the image of the inner world is achieved. Firstly, the narrative about a person’s inner life can be told from either the first or third person, with the first form being historically earlier. These forms have different capabilities.

First-person narration creates a greater illusion of credibility of the psychological picture, since the person talks about himself. In a number of cases, the psychological narration in the first person takes on the character of a confession, which enhances the impression.

This narrative form is used mainly when there is one main character, whose consciousness and psyche are followed by the author and the reader, and the other characters are secondary, and their inner world is practically not depicted (“Confession” by Rousseau, “Childhood”, “Adolescence” and “Youth” by Tolstoy, etc.).

Third person narration has its advantages in terms of depicting the inner world. This is precisely the artistic form that allows the author, without any restrictions, to introduce the reader into the inner world of the character and show it in the most detail and depth.

The narrator can comment on the hero’s self-analysis, talk about those mental movements that the hero himself cannot notice or which he does not want to admit to himself, as, for example, in the following episode from “War and Peace”: “Natasha, with her sensitivity, also instantly noticed the state of her brother

She noticed him, but she herself was so happy at that moment, she was so far from grief, sadness, reproaches, that she<...>I deliberately deceived myself. “No, I’m having too much fun now to spoil my fun by sympathizing with someone else’s grief,” she felt and said to herself: “No, I’m probably mistaken, he should be as cheerful as I am.”

At the same time, the narrator can psychologically interpret the external behavior of the hero, his facial expressions and plasticity, etc., as discussed above in connection with psychological external details.

Third-person narration provides ample opportunities for incorporating a variety of psychological depiction techniques into the work: internal monologues, public confessions, excerpts from diaries, letters, dreams, visions, etc. easily and freely flow into such a narrative element.

Third-person narration deals most freely with artistic time; it can dwell for a long time on the analysis of fleeting psychological states and very briefly inform about long periods that have, for example, the nature of plot connections in a work.

This makes it possible to increase the relative weight of the psychological image in the overall narrative system, to switch the reader’s interest from the details of events to the details of feelings.

In addition, the psychological image in these conditions can reach maximum detail and exhaustiveness: a psychological state that lasts minutes, or even seconds, can stretch out over several pages in the narrative; Perhaps the most striking example of this is noted by N.G. Chernyshevsky's episode of the death of Praskukhin in Tolstoy's Sevastopol Stories.

Finally, third-person narration makes it possible to depict the inner world of not one, but many characters, which is much more difficult to do with another method of narration.

Techniques of psychological depiction include psychological analysis and introspection. The essence of both techniques is that complex mental states are decomposed into components and thereby explained and become clear to the reader. Psychological analysis is used in third-person narration, while introspection is used in both first- and third-person narration. Here, for example, is a psychological analysis of Pierre’s condition from War and Peace:

“... he realized that this woman could belong to him.

“But she’s stupid, I said myself that she’s stupid,” he thought. “There’s something nasty in the feeling that she aroused in me, something forbidden.”<...>- he thought; and at the same time, as he reasoned like this (these reasonings still remained unfinished), he found himself smiling and realized that another series of reasoning was emerging from behind the first, that at the same time he was thinking about her insignificance and dreaming of how she will be his wife<...>

And again he saw her not as some daughter of Prince Vasily, but saw her whole body, only covered with a gray dress. “But no, why didn’t this thought occur to me before?” And again he told himself that this was impossible, that something disgusting, unnatural, as it seemed to him, dishonest would be in this marriage<...>

He remembered the words and looks of Anna Pavlovna when she told him about the house, remembered thousands of such hints from Prince Vasily and others, and horror came over him, whether he had somehow tied himself in the execution of such a task, which, obviously, is not good and which he should not do. But at the same time, as he expressed this decision to himself, from the other side of his soul her image emerged with all its feminine beauty.”

Here, the complex psychological state of mental confusion is analytically divided into components: first of all, two directions of reasoning are identified, which, alternating, are repeated either in thoughts or in images.

The accompanying emotions, memories, desires are recreated in as much detail as possible. What is experienced simultaneously unfolds in Tolstoy in time, is depicted in sequence, the analysis of the psychological world of the individual proceeds, as it were, in stages. At the same time, the feeling of simultaneity, the unity of all components of inner life, is preserved, as indicated by the words “at the same time.”

As a result, one gets the impression that the hero’s inner world is presented with exhaustive completeness, that there is simply nothing to add to the psychological analysis; analysis of the components of mental life makes it extremely clear to the reader.

And here is an example of psychological introspection from “A Hero of Our Time”: “I often ask myself, why am I so stubbornly seeking the love of a young girl whom I do not want to seduce and whom I will never marry? Why this female coquetry? Vera loves me more than Princess Mary will ever love me; if she seemed to me an invincible beauty, then perhaps I would have been attracted by the difficulty of the enterprise<...>

But nothing happened! Consequently, this is not the restless need for love that torments us in the first years of youth.<...>

Why am I bothering? Out of envy of Grushnitsky? Poor thing! He doesn't deserve her at all. Or is this a consequence of that nasty but invincible feeling that makes us destroy the sweet delusions of our neighbor?<...>

But there is immense pleasure in possessing a young, barely blossoming soul!.. I feel in myself this insatiable greed, absorbing everything that comes along the way; I look at the sufferings and joys of others only in relation to myself, as food that supports my spiritual strength.

I myself am no longer capable of going mad under the influence of passion; My ambition was suppressed by circumstances, but it manifested itself in a different form, for ambition is nothing more than a thirst for power, and my first pleasure is to subordinate to my will everything that surrounds me.”

Let us pay attention to how analytical the above passage is: this is an almost scientific examination of a psychological problem, both in terms of methods for solving it and in terms of results. First, the question is posed with all possible clarity and logical clarity. Then obviously untenable explanations are discarded (“I don’t want to seduce and I will never marry”). Next, a discussion begins about deeper and more complex reasons: the need for love, envy and “sports interest” are rejected as such. From here a logical conclusion is drawn: “Therefore...”.

Finally, analytical thought takes the right path, turning to the positive emotions that Pechorin’s plan and the anticipation of its implementation give him: “But there is immense pleasure...”.

The analysis goes, as it were, in a second circle: where does this pleasure come from, what is its nature? And here is the result: the reason for the reasons, something indisputable and obvious (“My first pleasure...”).

An important and frequently encountered technique of psychologism is the internal monologue - the direct recording and reproduction of the hero’s thoughts, more or less imitating the real psychological patterns of internal speech.

The psychological process has its own logic, it is whimsical, and its development is largely subject to intuition, irrational associations, seemingly unmotivated convergence of ideas, etc. All this is reflected in internal monologues.

In addition, the internal monologue usually reproduces the speech style of a given character, and therefore his manner of thinking. Here, as an example, is an excerpt from Vera Pavlovna’s internal monologue in Chernyshevsky’s novel “What is to be done?”:

“Did I do well to force him to come in?..

And what a difficult position I put him in!..

My God, what will happen to me, poor thing?

There is one remedy, he says - no, my dear, there is no remedy.

No, there is a remedy; here it is: a window. When it becomes too hard, I will throw myself out of it.

How funny I am: “when it’s too hard” - and now?

And when you throw yourself out the window, how fast, how fast will you fly?<...>No, that's good<...>

Yes, and then? Everyone will look: the head is broken, the face is broken, covered in blood, covered in dirt.<...>

And in Paris, poor girls are suffocated with child. This is good, this is very, very good. But throwing yourself out of a window is not good. And that’s good.”

An internal monologue, taken to its logical limit, gives a slightly different technique of psychologism, not often used in literature and called “stream of consciousness.” This technique creates the illusion of an absolutely chaotic, disordered movement of thoughts and experiences. Here is an example of this technique from Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace”:

““The snow must be a spot; a spot - une tach,” thought Rostov. - “That’s not good for you...”

“Natasha, sister, black eyes. On... Tashka... (she’ll be surprised when I tell her how I saw the sovereign!) Natasha... take Tashka... Yes, you mean, what was I thinking? - no forget. How will I talk to the sovereign? No, that’s not it, it’s tomorrow. Yes, yes! To stupid us - and the hussars and mustaches... This hussar with a mustache was riding along Tverskaya, I? I thought about him, opposite Guryev’s house... Old man Guryev... Eh, nice little Denisov! Yes, all this is nothing. The main thing now is the way he looked at me, and I wanted to say something to him, but he did. I didn’t dare... No, I didn’t dare. Yes, it’s nothing, but the main thing is that I was thinking something necessary, yes, to dumb us down, yes, yes, yes.”

Another technique of psychologism is the so-called dialectic of the soul. The term belongs to Chernyshevsky, who describes this technique as follows: “Count Tolstoy’s attention is most of all drawn to how some feelings and thoughts develop from others, as a feeling that directly follows from a given situation or impression, subject to the influence of memories and the power of combinations represented by the imagination, passes into other feelings, returns again to the previous starting point and wanders again and again, changing along the entire chain of memories; how a thought, born of the first sensation, leads to other thoughts, is carried further and further, merges dreams with actual sensations, dreams of the future with reflection on the present.”

This thought of Chernyshevsky can be illustrated by many pages of books by Tolstoy, Chernyshevsky himself, and other writers. As an example, here is (with cuts) an excerpt from Pierre’s reflections in “War and Peace”:

“Then he imagined her (Helen. - A.E.) in the first time after marriage, with open shoulders and a tired, passionate look, and immediately next to her he imagined the beautiful, insolent and firmly mocking face of Dolokhov, as it was on lunch, and the same face of Dolokhov, pale, trembling and suffering, as it was when he turned and fell into the snow.

“What happened? - he asked himself. “I killed my lover, yes, I killed my wife’s lover.” Yes. It was. Why? How did I get to this point? “Because you married her,” answered the inner voice.

“But what am I to blame for? - he asked. “The fact is that you married without loving her, that you deceived both yourself and her,” and he vividly imagined that minute after dinner at Prince Vasily’s when he said these words that never escaped him: “Je vous aime ". Everything from this! I felt then, he thought, I felt then that it was not that I had no right to it. And so it happened.” He remembered the honeymoon and blushed at the memory<...>».

And how many times have I been proud of her<...>- he thought<..>- So this is what I was proud of?! I thought then that I didn't understand her<...>and the whole solution was in that terrible word that she was a depraved woman: I said this to myself scary word, and everything became clear!”<...>

Then he remembered the rudeness, the clarity of her thoughts and the vulgarity of her expressions<...>“Yes, I never loved her,” Pierre said to himself, “I knew that she was a depraved woman,” he repeated to himself, “but did not dare admit it.

And now Dolokhov, here he sits in the snow and smiles forcibly and dies, perhaps responding with some kind of feigned youthfulness to my repentance!<...>

“She is to blame for everything, she alone is to blame,” he said to himself. - But what of this? Why did I associate myself with her, why did I tell her this: “Je vous aime,” which was a lie, and even worse than a lie, he said to himself. - It's my fault<...>

Louis XVI was executed because they said that he was dishonest and a criminal (it occurred to Pierre), and they were right from their point of view, just as those who died a martyr’s death for him and ranked him among the face of the saints.

Then Robespierre was executed for being a despot. Who is right, who is wrong? Nobody. But live and live: tomorrow you will die, just as I could have died an hour ago. And is it worth it to suffer when you only have one second to live compared to eternity?”

But at that moment, when he considered himself reassured by this kind of reasoning, he suddenly imagined her and those moments when he most strongly showed her his insincere love - and he felt a rush of blood to his heart, and had to get up again, move, and break and tear things that come to his hand. Why did I tell her "Je vous aime"? - he kept repeating to himself.”

Let us note another method of psychologism, somewhat paradoxical at first glance - this is the method of silence. It consists in the fact that at some point the writer says nothing at all about the hero’s inner world, forcing the reader to carry out a psychological analysis himself, hinting that the hero’s inner world, although it is not directly depicted, is still quite rich and deserves attention.

As an example of this technique, we give an excerpt from Raskolnikov’s last conversation with Porfiry Petrovich in Crime and Punishment. Let's take the climax of the dialogue: the investigator has just directly announced to Raskolnikov that he considers him to be the murderer; The nervous tension of the stage participants reaches its highest point:

“It wasn’t me who killed,” Raskolnikov whispered, like frightened little children when they are captured at the scene of a crime.

No, it’s you, Rodion Romanych, you, and there’s no one else,” Porfiry whispered sternly and with conviction.

They both fell silent, and the silence lasted for a strangely long time, about ten minutes. Raskolnikov leaned his elbows on the table and silently ran his fingers through his hair. Porfiry Petrovich sat quietly and waited. Suddenly Raskolnikov looked contemptuously at Porfiry.

You're back to your old ways again, Porfiry Petrovich! All for the same tricks of yours: how can you not get tired of this, really?”

It is obvious that during these ten minutes that the heroes spent in silence, psychological processes did not stop. And of course, Dostoevsky had every opportunity to depict them in detail: to show what Raskolnikov thought, how he assessed the situation and what feelings he had towards Porfiry Petrovich and himself.

In a word, Dostoevsky could (as he did more than once in other scenes of the novel) “decipher” the hero’s silence, clearly demonstrate as a result of what thoughts and experiences Raskolnikov, at first confused and confused, already seems ready to confess and repent, decides everything. continue the same game. But there is no psychological image as such here, and yet the scene is saturated with psychologism.

The reader figures out the psychological content of these ten minutes; without the author’s explanation, he understands what Raskolnikov might be experiencing at this moment.

The technique of silence became most widespread in the works of Chekhov, and after him - of many other writers of the 20th century.

Along with the listed methods of psychologism, which are the most common, writers sometimes use in their works specific means of depicting the inner world, such as imitation of intimate documents (novels in letters, the introduction of diary entries, etc.), dreams and visions (especially widely this form of psychologism is presented in Dostoevsky’s novels), the creation of double characters (for example, the Devil as a kind of double of Ivan in the novel “The Brothers Karamazov”), etc. In addition, as a method of psychologism, external details are also used, as discussed above.

Esin A.B. Principles and techniques of analyzing a literary work. - M., 1998

Interest in the mental life of a person, in other words, psychologism (in the broadest sense) has always been present in literature. This is quite natural. Psychological (mental) is one of the levels of personality, and it is impossible to bypass it when studying personality.

Everything related to the ways of manifestation and realization of personality always has a psychological aspect.

What, however, is specifically meant by psychologism in literature?

Psychologism in literature can have at least three different aspects, depending on what is considered the object of study: the psychology of the author, the hero or the reader. Art cannot be considered a subsection of psychology. Therefore, “...only that part of art that embraces the process of image-making can be the subject of psychology, and in no way that part that constitutes the proper essence of art; this second part of it, along with the question of what art in itself is, can only be a subject aesthetic and artistic, but not a psychological way of considering"51. I immediately exclude the psychology of creativity and the psychology of perception of art from the scope of my analysis. We will be interested in the “psychology of the hero” - to the extent that it will constitute the “own essence of art.” Psychoanalysis cannot be an analysis of a work of art. This is an analysis of the mental sphere, but not the spiritual. What is important to us is not the technology of the creative process and the technology of its perception (repression of the unconscious, its breakthroughs, the influence of the unconscious on consciousness, the transition of one into another, etc.), but the result: something of spiritual value, created according to the laws of beauty. We will be interested in the psychology of the hero as a way of conveying spirituality in literature, the fusion and transition of the psychological structure into the aesthetic.

Thus, by psychologism I mean the study of the mental life of heroes in its deep contradictions.

The existence of the terms “psychological novel” and “psychological prose” forces us to further specify the concept of psychologism in literature. The fact is that the mentioned terms have been assigned in literary studies to works of classical literature of the 19th and 20th centuries. (Flaubert, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Proust, etc.). Does this mean that psychologism appeared only in the 19th century, and before that there was no psychologism in literature?

I repeat: literature has always had an interest in the inner life of a person. However, the psychologization of literature in the 19th

century reached unprecedented proportions, and most importantly, the quality of realistic psychological prose began to differ fundamentally from all previous literature. As we see, interest in inner life and psychologism are far from identical concepts.

Realism as a method created a new, completely unusual character structure. Pre-realistic evolution of structure literary hero in a nutshell it was like this. Let me start with the fact that the process of penetration of the concept of personality from life into literature has always existed (as well as the reverse process). However, in different eras they understood the relationship between art and reality differently, and had different principles for the aesthetic modeling of personality. Pre-realistic principles of personality modeling somehow distorted and simplified reality. Historically, different forms of character formation are, if you like, different principles of distortion of reality in accordance with the prevailing worldview; it is always the absolutization of some property, quality.

The search for a personality model in which opposing qualities would coexist contradictorily led to the emergence of realism.

Archaic and folk literature, folk comedies created a mask character. A stable literary role and even a sustained plot function. The mask was a symbol of a certain property, and such a character structure did not contribute to the study of the property as such.

To accomplish this task, a different character structure was required - type. Classicism crystallized what can be called the “socio-moral type” (L. Ya. Ginzburg). The hypocrisy of Tartuffe, the stinginess of Harpagon ("The Miser" by Molière) are moral properties. "A tradesman among the nobility" is vain. But in this comedy, the social sign overshadows the moral one, which is reflected in the title. Thus, in comedy, the main principle of typification is the predominant moral and social property. And this principle - with the dominance of one of the two principles - worked fruitfully in literature for centuries, including early realism. Even in Gogol, Balzac, Dickens we find socio-moral types. In Gogol, moral significance comes to the fore (Gogol types: Nozdryov, Khlestakov, Sobakevich, Manilov, etc.), and in Balzac it is social (Goriot, Rastignac, etc.).

Let me emphasize: personality in conventional, pre-realistic systems is reflected not through character (it is not yet in the literature), but through a set of unidirectional characteristics or even through one characteristic.

From type there was a direct path to character. Character does not deny type; it is built on its basis. Character always begins where several types are combined simultaneously. At the same time, the “basic type” in the character is not blurred to the point of amorphism (it always shines through the character), but it is sharply complicated by other “typical” properties. Character, therefore, is a set of multidirectional characteristics with a tangible organizing beginning of one of them. Sometimes it is quite difficult to discover the line beyond which type ends and character begins. In Oblomov, for example, the principle of sociomoral typification is very noticeable. Oblomov’s laziness is landowner laziness, Oblomovism is a social and moral concept. Stolz's energy is the quality of a German commoner. Turgenev's characters - reflective liberal nobles, commoners - are much more characters than types. Character, as we remember, is the social registration of a personality, the outer shell, but not the personality itself. Character shapes personality, and at the same time is formed by it. Character is an individual combination of psychological characteristics. Developed multidimensional characters required psychologism for their embodiment.

The characters of classicism were well aware of the contradictions of mental life. The contradictions between duty and passion determined the intensity of the inner life of the heroes of classicist tragedies. However, fluctuations between duty and passion did not become psychologism in the modern sense of the term. The “binary” principle of mental contradictions has a “formal and logical basis” (L. Ya. Ginzburg). Passion and duty are separate and mutually impenetrable. Debt is explored as duty, passion as passion. Their speculative opposition determined a rational method of research. Rational poetics also approaches mental life rationally. “Binary” did not become a “unity of opposites”; formal logic did not become dialectical. Man, rationally understood, was not yet an integral personality. To do this, it was necessary to replace the formal-logical conditionality of contradictions with a dynamic, dialectical one.

It would be more accurate to mean by psychologism the study of the dialectics of mental life in its conditionality by the dialectics of spiritual life. Without dialectics, there is interest in psychological life, but there is no “psychologism” in its specific meaning accepted in literary criticism.

So, psychologism is associated primarily with the multidimensionality of character, which is formed simultaneously by both the environment and the individual. This turned out to be possible and necessary for the following reasons. Realism, as already mentioned, grew out of the pathos of explaining life, from the conviction that there is a real, earthly, understandable conditionality of the hero’s behavior. Conditionality itself largely became the subject of depiction in realism. The pinnacle of realism is the work of L. N. Tolstoy. It can be considered as an encyclopedia of the psychological life of people of various social strata and life orientations: psychological gestures (internal and external), the psychology of speech behavior. It was he who “brought realistic conditioning to the limit - both in its broadest socio-historical outlines and in the microanalysis of the most detailed impressions and motivations”52.

This means that personality, as psychological prose understood it, no longer consists of one or several properties that determine behavior. Personality depends on many factors simultaneously. A person is overcome by a “confusion” of thoughts and feelings, in which, in the words of Chekhov’s heroine, “it’s just as... difficult to figure out how to count fast-flying sparrows” (“Misfortune”).

The man is behaving mysteriously. To solve this riddle, it is necessary to establish the dependence of his behavior on numerous motives and motivations, which are not always clear to him himself53. Human activity becomes multimotivated.

Before us is a completely original concept of personality. At first intuitively, and then (in Tolstoy) quite consciously, writers begin to distinguish three levels of a person, which were mentioned in the chapter on personality (Chapter 2): the bodily level, which is the sphere of primary biological drives; mental, psychological level, closely related to social values, with the rules of life; the spiritual level, actually human, dependent on the first two, but at the same time free, and even determining the first two. The famous Tolstoy “dialectics of the soul”, “fluidity of consciousness” is nothing more than the crossing of motives from different spheres. And the crossing of motives and their struggle are possible due to the fact that “psychological prose”, before psychology, discovered the mechanisms for the generation and functioning of various motives of behavior, namely: behavior is determined not only by consciousness, but also by the subconscious. In pre-realistic literature, motive and action were directly and unambiguously connected: a deceiver lies, a villain intrigues, virtue is crystal clear in thoughts and actions.

At the center of psychological analysis were the contradictions between motive and motive, motive and action, inadequacy of behavior and desires, inclinations. Psychological analysis was intended to reveal the infinitely differentiated conditionality of behavior. And now science is actively studying the hierarchy of motives, offering various “principles for scaling motives 54.

But it was not the psychological mechanism as such, as the ultimate goal, that became the focus of attention in realistic prose. He helped pose and solve moral and spiritual problems in a new way. (By the way, it is interesting to note this pattern: the largest psychologists of the 20th century - Freud, Fromm, Jung, Frankl and others - did not come to philosophy by chance. They established the dependence of psychology on “systems of orientation and worship.” Frankl even founded a new direction in science - logotherapy, the goal of which is to cure mental illnesses themselves with spiritual therapy. A new understanding of man, treating him not as a type, but as a character, as a multi-level personality, has radically changed the poetics of psychological prose.)

The cardinal sign of a socio-moral type - property - is the result of the external perception of the character. The unambiguous formula of types is a look from the outside. However, what is from the outside is a property, an action from the inside is a process, a motive. Psychological analysis replaced the image from the outside with an image from the inside, “...it establishes the apparatus of psychological analysis (the 19th century novel - A. A.) as if from the inside, in order to see mental phenomena as they would appear to a person in the process of self-observation. The image from the inside (in combined with a new principle of conditionality) changed the ethical status of the novel. Not because analysis abolished evil, but because from the inside, evil and good are not given in a pure form. They go back to different sources and are set in motion by different motives."55 Tolstoy began to show bad thoughts good people- and good thoughts of bad people. The moral qualities of a person turned out to be not once and for all properties, but a dynamic process. For Tolstoy, good became good only by defeating evil, by opposing it. Without evil, the existence of good became unthinkable. For Tolstoy, the unity of opposites truly became the source of internal development and spiritual growth of the heroes.

This approach, in principle, allows us to explain everything about a person. Man turned out to be able to transform his weakness into strength, strength into weakness. The principles of conditioning the hero’s behavior, examined through the prism of psychologism, began to reveal endless complexity behind their simplicity. Let's try to outline the dominant principles of behavior of such a complex hero of Tolstoy as Pierre Bezukhov. Briefly, they can be formulated approximately like this: the search for a universal truth, a single principle capable of explaining all the facts, all the immense phenomena of existence, the search for a single comprehensive meaning that was deduced from reality by a real person. Bezukhov's task is so “simple” (drop!) that it requires research into the ocean (war and peace). By the way, the image of a drop and a globe-ocean, which most organically reveals the connection of everything with everything, is directly present in Tolstoy’s novel.

Repeatedly reflected integrity is the direction of Pyotr Kirillovich’s path. This path has no end, just as there is, in essence, no beginning. The integrity of man (the unity of the rational and irrational in him) is demonstrated in the novel in many ways. In fact, the entire spectrum is given from the rational pole (German generals, Napoleon, old prince Nikolai Andreevich Bolkonsky, Andrei Bolkonsky) to the gradual transition to the irrational, intuitive pole (Kutuzov, Princess Marya, Nikolai Rostov, Platon Karataev). The culminating, harmonic beginning, balancing the poles, is represented by Bezukhov (male version) and Natasha Rostova ( female version). The selection of names, of course, only indicates a trend and by no means exhausts all the characters in a novel of one kind or another.

The integrity of a person permeates integrity of a different order: the integrity of the family, city, nation, humanity (world). How could Bezukhov (and with him the narrator and Tolstoy) solve a problem of such biblical complexity?

Bezukhov found what alone could help build a worldview: he found a methodology. “The most difficult thing (Pierre continued to think or hear in his sleep) is to be able to unite in his soul the meaning of everything. To unite everything? - Pierre said to himself. - No, not to unite. - You cannot unite thoughts, but to unite all these thoughts - That’s what you need! Yes, we need to pair, we need to pair!” - Pierre repeated to himself with inner delight, feeling that with these words, and only with these words, is expressed what he wants to express, and the whole question tormenting him is resolved. To connect means to see the indirect connection of everything with everything in this world. To interface means to think dialectically. This is why Tolstoy needed personality in history and history in personality.

“War and Peace” already in the title itself contains the unity of opposites, integrity. The title of the novel is the shortest formula of reality. According to Tolstoy, the hard path of drama and tragedy leads to idyllic harmony. There is no other way to harmony.

If we imagine Tolstoy’s task, dictated by a new vision of man, then it becomes clear that psychologism cannot be interpreted only as a new arsenal of poetic means. Psychologism first became new philosophy a person, his ideological and moral structure, and only then - aesthetic. “Experiencing thoughts” becomes the main core of Bezukhov. The motives of different spheres are subject to the spiritual needs of a free personality. Literature has not changed itself: it is still interested in personal issues. But in the dynamic structure, the personality appeared fluid, carrying within itself good and evil at the same time.

Speaking about psychologism in literature, it is impossible not to at least briefly touch on the work of Dostoevsky. In many ways it would seem to contradict what has been said about the essence of psychologism.

Without touching on the genesis of Dostoevsky’s “novel of ideas,” I will note that it was not the types and characters that became its basis. It is known that Dostoevsky denied social determinism. The environment, according to Dostoevsky, could not “seize” what is the essence of man. The personalities of the writer's heroes are not formed by character, and character depends little on circumstances. Dostoevsky's personality is extremely autonomous, independent of the environment. The writer's psychologism does not reveal the connection between personality - character - circumstances, but directly reveals the core of the personality. For Dostoevsky, the forerunner of modernism, the main thing was the metaphysical understanding of free will. The hero's behavior is almost directly determined by the idea. “Existential dichotomies,” in Fromm’s words, constitute the main complex of ideas of his characters. The prerequisites that determine human behavior do not lie in the biological or socio-psychological sphere, although his heroes are not without this context. He tore off all the veils from the personality - social, blood-related, psychophysiological - and got to the bottom of the very core of the personality.

For Dostoevsky's heroes, a thought turns into an idea. Ideas, unlike thoughts, are fraught with volitional impulse; they push to action. This is why all events in novels are determined by ideas.

The question arises: should the novels of Dostoevsky’s ideas be considered psychological novels in the sense that we meant by this concept when talking about Tolstoy’s novels? Heroes-ideas, heroes-symbols of Dostoevsky are fundamentally different from heroes “of flesh and blood” of Tolstoy.

In any case, without inscribing the character into the environment, without deducing the characteristics of the individual from the environment, Dostoevsky equipped his novels with the most perfect “psychological technique.” Simultaneous and multidirectional human impulses - through the subconscious - control the behavior of his characters. The “dialectics of ideas” in Dostoevsky’s novels is realized through the psychological structure of the characters. This formed the concrete historical side of the writer’s method.

Having explained my understanding of the essence of psychologism in literature, I turn to the question of the forms and methods of its transmission. The type of psychologism is a way of implementing an ethical and, more broadly, ideological program. Consequently, the psychological mechanism itself, which embodies ethical norms and ideals, is, of course, a characteristic of the method. After all, the psychological mechanism acts as the principle of conditioning the hero’s behavior. But the means of conveying a specific psychological mechanism is already at the level of style. This is how a thread stretches from method to style, and the psychological structure of the character turns out to be, on the one hand, an ethical structure (in terms of content), on the other, an aesthetic structure (in terms of formalization of content).

The main stylistic levels, carriers of psychologism, include, first of all, speech and detail, conveying the state of the character, as well as the plot, reflecting behavior and action.

It is probably possible to typologize types of psychological analysis according to various initial grounds. From my point of view, there are two main forms of psychological analysis: “open psychologism” and “secret psychologism.” (Terminology, again, may be different. The author follows the tradition of the Russian philological school. See p. 43.) Open psychologism is “speech psychologism.” Where, if not in the speech of the heroes, can deep psychological processes be most adequately reflected? The main forms of speech of the characters were indicated on p. 61-63. In secret psychologism, the internal state of the characters is conveyed mainly through detail (pp. 59-60). Most often, these two types of psychologism are combined according to the principle of complementarity: heroes cannot only think and speak or only act in silence.

In conclusion, I note that the development of psychologism did not end with Tolstoy’s work (as, incidentally, it did not begin with him). Since psychologism itself is only an intermediary that carries out direct and inverse communication between “orientation systems” and behavior, changes in worldview directly affect the type of psychologism. The intellectual psychologism of Proust, Joyce, attempts to “absurdize” the world and dissolve man in it significantly modified psychologism. The mental process as such begins to attract artists in the 20th century. A person’s spiritual quests recede into the second, if not third, plane.

It is striking that only by the middle of the 20th century, humanistic “philosophical psychology” was able to rationally explain what Tolstoy understood already in the middle of the 19th century. Tolstoy's stunning discoveries are surprisingly modern. Leaving aside his ethical program, I note that the 20th century only sharpened and brought to the extreme such discoveries of Tolstoy as the phenomenon of subtext and irrational internal monologue. However, the dialectical integrity of man was lost.

Psychologism in literature is a deep and detailed depiction of the inner world of the characters: their thoughts, desires, experiences, which constitutes an essential feature of the aesthetic world of the work. Each type of literature has its own possibilities for revealing the inner world of a person. In lyrics, psychologism is expressive in nature; In it, as a rule, it is impossible to “look from the outside” at a person’s mental life. The lyrical hero either directly expresses his feelings and emotions, or goes deeper into introspection. The subjectivity of the lyrical makes it, on the one hand, expressive and deep, and on the other hand, it limits its capabilities in understanding the inner world of a person. In part, such restrictions apply to psychologism in dramaturgy, since the main way of reproducing the inner world in it is the monologues of the characters, which are in many ways similar to lyrical statements. Other ways of revealing a person’s mental life in drama began to be used in the 19th and especially in the 20th century: gestural and facial behavior of characters, features of mise-en-scène, intonation pattern of a role, creation of a certain psychological atmosphere with the help of scenery, sound and noise design. However, dramatic psychologism is limited by the conventions inherent in this literary genre. The epic genre of literature has the greatest potential for depicting the inner world of man.

First narrative works, which can be called psychological, were the novels of Heliodorus “Ethiopica” (3-4 centuries) and Long’s “Daphnis and Chloe” (2-3 centuries). Psychologism was still primitive in them, but he already outlined the ideological and artistic significance of a person’s inner life. The Middle Ages in Europe clearly did not contribute to the development of psychologism, and it appears in European literature only during the Renaissance, having since then become an integral feature of fiction.

The main forms of psychological depiction, to which all specific techniques for reproducing the inner world ultimately come down, are “depiction of characters “from the inside,” i.e. through artistic knowledge of the inner world of the characters, expressed through internal speech, images of memory and imagination” and “psychological analysis “from the outside”, expressed in the writer’s psychological interpretation of the expressive features of speech, speech behavior, facial expressions and other means of external manifestation of the psyche.” The techniques of psychologism include psychological analysis and introspection. Psychological analysis is used in third-person narration, introspection is used in both first- and third-person narration, as well as in the form of indirect internal speech. An important and frequently encountered technique of psychologism is the internal monologue - the direct recording and reproduction of the hero’s thoughts, which to a greater or lesser extent imitates the real psychological patterns of internal speech. N.G. Chernyshevsky in 1856 called the psychological analysis of L.N. Tolstoy “dialectics of the soul.”

The word psychologism comes from Greek psyche - soul and logos, which means concept.