On October 22, 1870, one of the great Russian writers, Ivan Bunin, was born. The last classic of Russian literature and the first Russian Nobel laureate in literature, in his worldview, he belonged more to the nineteenth century than to the twentieth. Bunin was distinguished by independence of judgment. Many sharp but well-aimed statements concern contemporary writers, poets and entire literary movements. By the way, not only modern - Bunin also had his own opinion about the classics. He subjected the Russian revolution and revolutionaries to literally annihilating criticism. In general, he looked very critically at the Russian people. One can agree or argue with Bunin, but it is difficult not to appreciate the accuracy and power of his language.

About happiness

- Three things make a person happy: love, interesting work and the opportunity to travel ...

- If a person has not lost the ability to wait for happiness, he is happy. This is happiness.

“Human happiness lies in not wanting anything for yourself. The soul calms down and begins to find the good where it did not expect it at all.

I see, I hear, I'm happy. Everything is in me.

- If I didn’t have arms and legs and I could only sit on a bench and look at the setting sun, then I would be happy with this. All you need is to see and breathe. Nothing gives such pleasure as paint ...

About love

Vanity chooses, true love does not choose.

- When you love someone, no one will force you to believe that the one you love can not love you.

Whoever marries for love has good nights and bad days.

About women

- A woman is very similar to a man and lives next to him.

“There are… female souls who are eternally languishing in some sad thirst for love, and who never love anyone because of this.

- A beautiful woman should occupy the second step; the first belongs to a lovely woman. This becomes the mistress of our heart: before we give an account of it to ourselves, our heart becomes a slave of love forever...

“Women are never as strong as when they arm themselves with weakness.

About life and death

The life of man is expressed in relation to the finite to the infinite.

“In general, we must be very guilty of everything before each other. But only when you are apart do you feel it. Then - how many more years of these years are left for us together? Even if there are more summers, there will still be less and less of them. So? Let's go to the graves! It hurts so much, feelings are so sharp, all thoughts and memories are so sharp! How stupid we are! How calm! And is this pain really necessary for us to appreciate life?

What a joy to exist! Only to see, at least to see only this smoke and this light.

- Blissful hours are passing, and it is necessary, it is necessary ... to preserve at least somehow and at least something, that is, to oppose death, the flowering of wild rose.

— Why, from childhood, a person is drawn to distance, breadth, depth, height, unknown, dangerous, where you can swing your life, even lose it for something or for someone? Would this be possible if our share was only what is, “what God has given”, only the earth, this one life? God has obviously given us so much more.

About Russia and Russians

- What an old Russian disease this is, this languor, this boredom, this spoiledness - the eternal hope that some frog with a magic ring will come and do everything for you: you just have to go out onto the porch and throw the ring from hand to hand.

- There are two types of people. In one, Russia predominates, in the other - Chud, Merya. But in both there is a terrible changeability of moods, appearances, "shakyness."

- The people themselves said to themselves: “From us, as from a tree, we are both a club and an icon,” depending on the circumstances, on who processes this tree: Sergius of Radonezh or Emelka Pugachev.

“Ah, this eternal Russian need for a holiday! .. how it draws us to incessant drunkenness, to hard drinking, how boring everyday life and systematic work are for us!

- Our children, grandchildren will not even be able to imagine the Russia in which we once (that is, yesterday) lived, which we did not appreciate, did not understand - all this power, complexity, wealth, happiness ...

- There is something very special in the warm and bright nights of Russian county towns at the end of summer. What a world, what prosperity!

About the Revolution

—...Satan of Cain's malice, bloodthirstiness and the wildest arbitrariness breathed on Russia precisely in those days when brotherhood, equality and freedom were proclaimed. Then immediately came a frenzy, acute insanity.

“Revolutions are not made with white gloves...” Why be indignant that counter-revolutions are made with iron gloves?

“The holiest of titles, the title of human, is as disgraced as ever. The Russian people are also disgraced - and what would it be, where would we put our eyes, if there were no "ice campaigns"!

Prepared by Boris Serov

Today it would be strange to see parties or politicians proposing to abolish freedom of speech. Radical leftists and conservatives may call for a "purge" of the media of "enemies of the people" and "fifth columns," but the constitution's freedom of speech provision itself is commonplace. It was not always so, of course.

Publicist, left-wing activist (in 1905) Vladimir Lenin limited freedom of speech by public opinion: they say that you can write and say only what society approves. And what exactly it approves - will be determined, of course, by the party. The poet Valery Bryusov did not agree at all with this interpretation of freedom of speech and wrote a response column. The irony of fate is that after the revolution, Bryusov joined the Bolshevik Party.

Scream, lie and write whatever

“Literary work,” writes Mr. Lenin in Novaya Zhizn (No. 12, 1905), cannot be an individual matter, independent of the general proletarian cause. Down with the non-party writers! Down with the superhuman writers! Literary work must become a wheel and a cog in one single great social-democratic mechanism.

And further: “Absolute freedom is a bourgeois or anarchist phrase. It is impossible to live in society and be free from society. The freedom of a bourgeois writer, artist, actress is only a disguised dependence on a bag of money. We, socialists, expose this hypocrisy, tear down false signs, not in order to obtain non-class literature and art (this will be possible only in a socialist, non-class society), but in order to oppose hypocritically free, but in fact connected with the bourgeoisie literature really free, openly connected with the proletariat literature.

Valery Bryusov (Avrelius)

G. Lenin makes objections to himself on behalf of “some intellectual, ardent supporter of freedom” in the following form: “How! You want the subordination of collectivity to such a subtle, individual matter as literary creativity! You want the workers to decide questions of science, philosophy and aesthetics by majority vote! You deny the absolute freedom of absolutely individual ideological creativity!”

And he replies: “Calm down, gentlemen! We are talking about party literature and its subordination to party control ... I am obliged to give you, in the name of freedom of speech, the full right to shout, lie and write whatever you like. But you owe it to me, in the name of freedom of association, to give me the right to enter into or dissolve an alliance with people who say this and that ... The Party is a voluntary union that would inevitably fall apart if it did not purify itself of members who preach anti-Party views ... Freedom of thought and criticism within the party will never make us forget about the freedom of grouping people into free unions called parties "

Here are some honest confessions! Mr. Lenin cannot be denied courage: he goes to extreme conclusions from his thought; but least of all in his words is the true love of freedom. Free (“non-class”) literature for him is a distant ideal that can only be realized in a socialist society of the future. For the time being, however, Mr. Lenin counterposes “literature that is hypocritically free, but in fact associated with the bourgeoisie” with “literature openly associated with the proletariat”. He calls this last "really free", but quite arbitrary ...

By the exact meaning of his definitions, both literatures are not free. The first is secretly connected with the bourgeoisie, the second openly with the proletariat. The advantage of the second can be seen in a more frank recognition of one's slavery, and not in greater freedom. Modern literature, in the view of Mr. Lenin, is in the service of the "money bag"; Party literature will be the "wheel and cog" of the general proletarian cause.

But even if we agree that the cause of the whole proletariat is a just cause, and a bag of money is something shameful, will this change the degree of dependence? The slave of the wise Plato was still a slave, not a free man.

However, it will be objected to me, that freedom of speech (albeit still incomplete, albeit again curtailed), which we now enjoy in Russia, or at least enjoyed for some time, was achieved by nothing else than the energy of the “Russian Social Democratic Labor Party”. I will not argue, I will pay all due to this energy. I will say more: in history one can find only one example reminiscent of our October events (we are talking about mass strikes in October 1905 - approx. Grandpaper): this is the retreat of the plebeians to the Sacred Mountain. This is truly the first "general strike" that preceded similar attempts by Belgium, Holland and Sweden by millennia. But, having recognized all the beneficence of the event we have experienced, should I, for that very reason, renounce my critical attitude towards it? It would be like demanding that no one, out of gratitude to Gutenberg, who invented printing, should dare to find flaws in his invention. We cannot fail to see that the Social-Democrats sought freedom exclusively for themselves, that the pariahs who stand outside the Party received crumbs of freedom by accident, for a time while the menacing “Down with!” does not yet have the significance of an edict. The words of the Social Democrats about universal freedom are also "hypocrisy", and we, non-Party writers, must also "tear down the false signs".

V. Lenin makes a speech

Mr. Lenin counterposes freedom of speech to freedom of association and threatens writers with non-Party exclusion from the Party. “Every free union,” he says, is free to expel such members who use the firm of the Party to preach anti-Party views. What does it mean? It would be strange to interpret this in the sense that writers who write against Social Democracy will not be given the pages of Social Democratic publications. For this it is not necessary to create "Party" literature. Offering only a consistent trend in magazines and newspapers, it would be ridiculous to exclaim, as Mr. Lenin does: “Get to work, comrades! Before us is a difficult and new, but great and rewarding task ... " After all, even now, when the "new and great" task has not yet been solved, it does not occur to the decadent writer to submit his poems to the Russkiy Vestnik, and the poets of Russkiy Bogatstvo have no pretensions to be printed in Northern Flowers. There is no doubt that Mr. Lenin's threat to "drive him away" has a different, broader meaning. Much more is at stake: the foundations of the Social-Democratic doctrine are affirmed as commandments against which no objections (members of the Party) are allowed.

G. Lenin is ready to grant the right to "shout, lie and write anything," but outside the door. He demands to terminate the alliance with people "saying this and that." So, there are words that are forbidden to be spoken. "The Party is a voluntary union, which would inevitably fall apart if it did not purify itself of members who preach anti-Party views." So, there are views that are forbidden to express. "Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the Party will never make us forget the freedom to group people into free unions." In other words, the members of the Social-Democratic Party are only allowed to criticize particular cases, individual aspects of the doctrine, but they cannot be critical of the very foundations of the doctrine. Those who dare to do this must be "driven away." In this decision - the fanaticism of people who do not allow the thought that their beliefs can be false. From here, one step to the statement of Caliph Omar: “Books containing the same as the Koran are superfluous; containing anything else - harmful.

Why, however, is Party literature realized in this way called truly free? How much differs the new censorship regulations being introduced in the Social-Democratic Party from the old one that prevailed among us until recently. Under the rule of the old censorship, criticism of individual aspects of the ruling system was allowed, but criticism of its fundamental principles was forbidden. Freedom of speech remains in a similar position within the Social Democratic Party. Of course, for the time being, those who disagree with such tyranny are given the opportunity to switch to other parties. But even under the previous system, Protestant writers had a similar opportunity: to go abroad, like Herzen. However, just as every soldier has a marshal's baton in his knapsack, so every political party dreams of becoming the only one in the country, of identifying itself with the people. The Social-Democratic Party hopes for this more than the other. Thus, the threat of expulsion from the Party is in essence a threat of expulsion from the people. Under the dominance of the old system, the writers who rebelled on its foundations referred, depending on the degree of "radicalism" in their writings, to places remote and not so remote. The new system threatens the “radical” writers with much more: expulsion from society, exile to Sakhalin of loneliness.

Catherine II defined freedom as follows: "Freedom is the ability to do everything that the laws allow." The Social Democrats give a similar definition: "Freedom of speech is the ability to say everything that is in accordance with the principles of social democracy." Such freedom cannot satisfy us, those whom Mr. Lenin contemptuously calls “Messrs. bourgeois individualists" and "supermen". For us, such freedom seems to be just a change of some chains for new ones. Even though writers were formerly shackled, and now they are offered to tie their hands with soft hemp ropes, but only the one who does not even have shackles of roses and lilies is free. "Down with non-Party writers!" exclaims Mr. Lenin. Consequently, non-partisanship, i.e. free thinking is already a crime. You must belong to a party (to ours, or at least to the official opposition), otherwise "down with you!". But in our view, freedom of speech is inextricably linked with freedom of judgment and respect for someone else's convictions. For us, freedom of search is dearest of all, even if it leads us to the collapse of all our beliefs and ideals. Where there is no respect for the opinion of another, where he is only arrogantly granted the right to "lie", not wanting to listen, there freedom is a fiction.

“Are you free from your bourgeois publisher, mister writer? From your bourgeois public, which demands pornography from you?” asks Mr. Lenin. I think that not only one person, but many will firmly and boldly answer this question: “Yes, we are free!”. Didn't Arthur Rimbaud write his poems when he had no publisher, neither bourgeois nor non-bourgeois, and no public that could demand from him "pornography" or something else. Or did not Paul Gauguin write his paintings, which were stubbornly rejected by various juries and did not find any buyers until the death of the artist? And did not a number of other workers of the "new art" uphold their ideals in spite of complete disdain on the part of all classes of society? Let us note by the way that these workers were not at all from among the "wealthy bourgeois", but often, like the same Rimbaud, like the same Gauguin, had to endure both hunger and homelessness.

Evidently, Mr. Lenin judges by those models of artisan writers whom he may have met in the editorial offices of liberal journals. He must know that a whole school has risen nearby, a new, different generation of writers and artists has grown up, those very ones whom he, not knowing them, calls with a derisive name - "supermen". For these writers - believe me, Mr. Lenin - the warehouse of bourgeois society is more hateful than you. In their poems, they branded this system "shamefully petty, wrong, ugly", these "modern little men", these "gnomes". Their whole task was to achieve "absolute" freedom of creativity in bourgeois society as well. And while you and yours are marching against the existing "wrong" and "ugly" system, we are ready to be with you, we are your allies. But as soon as you put your hand on the very freedom of belief, we immediately leave your banners. The "Koran of Social Democracy" is just as alien to us as the "Koran of Autocracy" (F. Tyutchev's expression). And since you demand faith in ready-made formulas, since you think that there is no longer anything to seek for truth, because you have it, you are enemies of progress, you are our enemies.

"Absolute freedom (of a writer, artist, artist) is a bourgeois or anarchist phrase," says Mr. Lenin - and immediately adds: "for, as a worldview, anarchism is bourgeoisness turned inside out." It seems to him that a thing turned inside out does not change at all. Try, however, turning the right glove inside out and putting it back on the right hand!.. But it is quite understandable why Mr. Lenin wants to disgrace anarchism by confusing it with bourgeoisism. The social-democratic doctrine has no more dangerous enemy than those who rebel against the idea of ​​"arche" (from the Greek "power" - approx. Grandpaper) so dear to it. That is why we, the seekers of absolute freedom, are considered by the Social Democrats to be the same enemies as the bourgeoisie. And, of course, if the life of a social, “non-class”, allegedly “truly free” society were realized, we would find ourselves in it the same outcasts, the same poètes maudits (from the French “outcast poets” - approx. Grandpaper), which we are in a bourgeois society.

The dispute of the painter with the poet, musician and sculptor

In fair lamentations, painting complains that it has been banished from the ranks of the liberal arts, for it is the true daughter of nature and is carried out by the most worthy feeling. Therefore, O writers, you are wrong to leave it outside the number of these free arts, for it deals not only with the creations of nature, but also with infinitely many things that nature never created.

Since the writers did not have information about the science of painting, they could not describe either its divisions or its parts; she herself does not reveal her final goal in words and, due to ignorance, has remained behind the sciences named above, without losing from this in her divinity. And indeed, it was not without reason that they did not ennoble her, since she ennobles herself, without the help of other languages, not otherwise than the perfect creations of nature do. And if the painters did not describe it and did not reduce it to science, then this is not the fault of painting, and it does not become less noble from the fact that only a few painters become professional writers, since their life is not enough to learn this. Can we say that the properties of herbs, stones and trees do not exist because people do not know about them? Of course not. But we will say that the herbs remain noble in themselves, without the help of human languages ​​or scripts.

That science is more useful, the fruit of which is most amenable to communication, and also, on the contrary, that which is less amenable to communication is less useful.

Painting is able to communicate its final results to all generations of the universe, since its final result is the object of the visual faculty; the way through the ear to the general sense is not the same as the way through the sight. Therefore, like writing, it does not need interpreters of various languages, but directly satisfies the human race, no other way than objects produced by nature. And not only the human race, but also other animals, as was shown by one picture depicting the father of the family: small children were caressed to her, who were still in swaddling clothes, as well as the dog and cat of this house, so that it was very surprising to look at this spectacle. .

Painting represents to feeling with greater truth and certainty the creations of nature than words or letters, but letters represent words with greater truth than painting. But we say that the science that represents the creations of nature is more worthy of admiration than that which represents the creations of the creator, that is, the creations of people, which are words; such is poetry and the like that runs through human language.

The sciences that can be imitated are such that by means of them the student becomes equal to the creator and also produces his own fruit. They are useful to the imitator, but not as excellent as those that cannot be inherited like other material goods. Among them, painting is the first. It cannot be taught to those whom nature does not allow, as in the mathematical sciences, of which the student learns as much as the teacher reads to him. It cannot be copied like writing, where the copy is as valuable as the original. It cannot be imprinted, as in sculpture, where the imprint is the same as the original in regard to the dignity of the work; it does not produce an infinite number of children, like printed books. She alone remains noble, she alone gives glory to her creator and remains valuable and unique and never gives birth to children equal to herself. And this feature makes it more excellent than those sciences that are announced everywhere.

Do we not see how the most powerful kings of the East come out in veils and veils, thinking that their glory will decrease from the announcement and promulgation of their presence? Do we not see that the paintings depicting deities are constantly kept closed by veils of the greatest value? And when they open, they first arrange great church celebrations with various chants and all kinds of music, and at the opening, a great multitude of people who have gathered here immediately rush to the ground, worshiping and praying to those whom such a picture depicts, for the acquisition of lost health and for eternal salvation, and not otherwise, as if this deity were personally present. This does not happen with any other science or other human creation, and if you say that this is not the merit of the painter, but the merit of the depicted subject, then the answer will follow that in this case the soul of people could be satisfied and they, remaining in bed, could not go on a pilgrimage to difficult and dangerous places, as, we see, this is constantly done. But if such pilgrimages still exist continuously, then who prompts them to do so unnecessarily? Of course, you admit that this makes an image that all scriptures cannot do, since they will not be able to depict this deity clearly and in dignity. Therefore, it seems that the deity itself loves such a picture and loves the one who loves and reveres it, and more willingly accepts worship in this than in other guises depicting him, and therefore shows mercy and grants salvation, - according to those who flock to such a place.

Painting extends to the surfaces, colors and figures of all objects created by nature, and philosophy penetrates into these bodies, considering in them their own properties. But it does not satisfy the truth reached by the painter who independently embraces the first truth of these bodies, since the eye errs less than the mind.

If you despise painting, the only imitator of all visible creations of nature, then surely you will despise a subtle invention that, with philosophical and subtle reflection, considers all the qualities of forms: seas, places, trees, animals, grasses and flowers - everything that surrounded by shadow and light. And truly, painting is a science and the legitimate daughter of nature, for it is generated by nature; but, to put it more correctly, we will say: the granddaughter of nature, since all visible things were generated by nature, and painting was born from these things. Therefore, we will rightly call her the granddaughter of nature and the relative of God.

There is not a single part in astrology that would not be a matter of visual lines and perspective, the daughter of painting, since the painter is the one who, due to the necessity of his art, brought this perspective into the world - and astrology cannot be developed without lines. All the various figures of bodies created by nature are enclosed in these lines; without them, the art of geometry is blind.

And if geometry reduces every surface surrounded by a line to the figure of a square, and every body to the figure of a cube, and arithmetic does the same with its cube and square roots, then both these sciences extend only to the study of discontinuous and continuous quantities, but do not work on quality - the beauty of the creations of nature and the decoration of the world.

The eye at a suitable distance and in a suitable environment is less mistaken in its service than any other sense, because it sees only along straight lines forming a pyramid, the base of which is the object, and brings it to the eye, as I intend to prove. The ear, on the other hand, is greatly mistaken in the location and distance of its objects, because their images do not reach it along straight lines, as they do to the eye, but along winding and reflected lines; and it often happens that what is far away seems closer than what is near, because of the path that these images take; although the sound of the echo reaches this feeling only in a straight line.

The sense of smell determines even less the place that causes the smell, and the taste and touch, touching the object, know only about this touch.

Living beings suffer more harm from loss of sight than hearing, and for many reasons: firstly, through sight, food is found that is needed for nutrition, which is necessary for all living beings; secondly, through sight, the beauty of created things is comprehended, especially those things that lead to love, which the blind from birth cannot comprehend by ear, since he never knew what the beauty of any thing is. He is left with hearing, through which he understands only sounds and human conversation, in which there are names of all those things by which their name is given. Without the knowledge of these names, one can live very merrily, as is seen in the deaf by nature, that is, in the mute, who communicate by means of a drawing, with which most of the dumb amuse themselves. And if you say that sight interferes with concentrated and subtle spiritual knowledge, through which penetration into the divine sciences is made, and that such an obstacle led one philosopher to deprive himself of sight, then the answer follows that the eye, as master over the senses he does his duty when he hinders the confused and deceitful - not sciences, but reasoning, in which disputes are always carried on with great shouting and assault; and the hearing, which does not remain offended, would have to do the same, since it would have to demand consent, which binds all feelings. And if such a philosopher plucks out his own eyes in order to get rid of the hindrance in his reasoning, then take into account that such an act is in accordance with both his brain and his reasoning, for all this is stupidity. Couldn't he close his eyes when he went into such a frenzy, and keep them shut until the frenzy wore itself out? But man was mad, reasoning was mad, and the greatest stupidity was to gouge out one's own eyes.

The eye, through which the beauty of the universe is reflected to beholders, is so excellent that whoever allows it to be lost will deprive himself of the idea of ​​all the creations of nature, the sight of which satisfies the soul in human prison with the help of eyes, through which the soul represents to itself all the various objects of nature. But whoever loses them leaves the soul in a gloomy prison, where all hope is lost to see the sun again, the light of the whole world. And how many of those to whom the darkness of the night, although they are short-lived, are hated in the highest degree! Oh, what would they do if these darkness became the companions of their lives?

Of course, there is no one who would not rather lose his hearing and smell than his eyes, although the loss of hearing entails the loss of all sciences ending in words; and this is done only in order not to lose the beauty of the world, which lies in the surfaces of bodies, both random and natural, reflected in the human eye.

If the painter wants to see beautiful things that inspire love in him, then it is in his power to give birth to them, and if he wants to see ugly things that frighten, or clownish and funny, or truly pitiful, then he is the ruler and god over them. And if he wishes to generate inhabited areas in the desert, places shady or dark during the heat, then he depicts them, and equally hot places during the cold. If he desires valleys, if he desires wide fields to open before him from high mountain peaks, if he desires to see the horizon of the sea behind them, then he is the master over this, and also if from deep valleys he wants to see high mountains or from high mountains deep valleys and coasts. And indeed, everything that exists in the universe as an essence, as a phenomenon, or as an imaginary, he has first in his soul, and then in hands that are so excellent that at the same time they create the same proportional harmony in one single look. , which objects form.

The eye, which is called the window of the soul, is the main way in which the general sense can contemplate in the greatest richness and splendor the infinite works of nature, and the ear is the second, and it is ennobled by the tales of those things which the eye has seen. If you, historiographers, or poets, or other mathematicians, have not seen things with your eyes, then you will hardly be able to report them in writing. And if you, the poet, depict history by means of painting with a pen, then the painter, by means of a brush, will make it so that it will be easier to satisfy and less boring to understand. If you call painting silent poetry, then the painter will be able to say that poetry is blind painting. Now look who is more crippled freak: blind or dumb? If the poet is free, like the painter, in inventions, then his inventions do not give such satisfaction to people as pictures; for if poetry extends itself in words to figures, forms, gestures, and places, then the painter strives to imitate these forms with his own images of forms. Now look what is closer to a person: the name of a person or the image of this person? The name of a person changes in different countries, and the form changes only by death. And if the poet serves the mind by way of the ear, then the painter - by the way of the eye, more worthy of feeling.

Madonna with a carnation, 1472-1478

But I want nothing more from them than that a good painter should depict the fury of the battle, and that a poet should describe another battle, and that both should be displayed side by side. You will see where the audience will linger more, where they will reason more, where there will be more praise and which one will satisfy more. Of course, a picture, as much more useful and beautiful, will please more. Place an inscription with God's name in any place and place its image opposite - and you will see that it will be more honored. If painting embraces all the forms of nature, then you have only names, and they are not universal, like forms. And if you have an image action, then we have an action image. Choose a poet to describe the beauties of a woman to her lover, and choose a painter to depict her, and you will see where nature will incline the amorous judge. Of course, the testing of things would have to be left to the decision of experience. You have placed painting among mechanical crafts. Of course, if painters were as inclined to praise their works in their writings as you are, then, I think, she would not have remained with such a low nickname. If you call it mechanical, since it is primarily done with the hands, for the hands represent what they find in fantasy, then you writers draw with your pen with your hands what is in your mind. And if you call it handicraft because it is done for a fee, then who falls into this mistake - if it can be called a mistake - more than you? If you read to learn, don't you go to the highest bidder? Do you perform at least one work without any payment? However, I do not say this in order to condemn such opinions, since all work counts on payment. And the poet can say: I will create a fiction that will signify something great; the painter will create the same thing, as Apelles created "Slander". If you said that poetry is more durable, then I will say that the works of the boilermaker are more durable and that time preserves them more than your or our works, and yet there is not much fantasy in them; and painting, if painted on copper with glaze, can be made much more durable. We can, in regard to art, be called grandchildren of God. If poetry extends to the philosophy of morality, then painting extends to the philosophy of nature. If the first describes the activity of consciousness, then the second considers whether consciousness manifests itself in movements. If the first frightens the peoples with infernal inventions, then the second actually does the same thing with the same things. Let the poet try to compare in the depiction of beauty, ferocity, or something vile and rude, monstrous with the painter, let him transform forms in his own way, as he pleases, but the painter will bring greater satisfaction. Is it not seen that the pictures had such a resemblance to the object depicted that they deceived both people and animals? If you, the poet, can tell and describe the phenomena of forms, then the painter will do it in such a way that they seem to come alive thanks to chiaroscuro, the creator of an expression on faces that is inaccessible to your pen where it is accessible to the brush.

Painting presents to you in an instant its essence in the faculty of sight, in the same way that natural objects receive an impression, and, moreover, at the very time in which the harmonic proportion of the parts is formed, which make up a whole that pleases the senses; and poetry reports the same, but by a means less worthy than the eye, and bearing the impression of the image of the named objects more vaguely and more slowly than the eye, the true mediator between the object and the impression, directly communicating with the highest truth about the true surfaces and figures of that, what appears before him; they also give rise to a proportionality called harmony, which amuses the senses with sweet consonance, just as the proportionality of different voices - the sense of hearing; the latter, however, is less worthy than the eye, since what is scarcely born from it already dies, and just as soon in death as in birth. This cannot happen with the sense of sight, because if you present to the eye human beauty, consisting of the proportionality of beautiful members, then these beauties are not so mortal and do not decay as quickly as music; on the contrary, this beauty is lasting and allows you to consider yourself and discuss - and everything will not be born again, like music in repeated sound, does not bore you - on the contrary, it enchants you and is the reason that all the senses, together with the eye, would like to possess it, and it seems that they would like to enter into a contest with the eye. It seems that the mouth would like to enclose it in the body through itself; the ear delights in hearing of her beauties; the sense of touch would like to penetrate it with all its pores; and even the nose would like to receive the air that blows continuously from it. But the beauty of such harmony is destroyed by time in a few years, which does not happen with the beauty depicted by the painter, since time preserves it for a long time; and the eye, inasmuch as it is its business, takes genuine delight in this painted beauty, as if it were living beauty; he has eliminated the sense of touch, which considers itself at the same time the elder brother, which, having fulfilled its task, does not prevent the mind from discussing divine beauty. And in this case, the picture depicting her largely replaces what the subtleties of the poet could not replace, who in this case wants to compare with the painter, but does not notice that his words, when mentioning the components of this beauty, are separated from each other by time. , placing oblivion between them and separating proportions that he cannot name without great lengths; and, not being able to name them, he cannot put them together into a harmonic proportion, which is made up of divine proportions. And therefore, simultaneity, in which the contemplation of picturesque beauty is closed, cannot give described beauty, and he sins against nature, who would want to place before the ear what should be placed before the eye. In such cases, let music come into its own and do not introduce the science of painting, the true depiction of the natural figures of all things.

What motivates you, O man, to leave your city dwelling, leave your relatives and friends, and go to the fields through mountains and valleys, if not the natural beauty of the world, which, if you think carefully, you enjoy only through the sense of sight? And if the poet wishes in this case also to call himself a painter, then why don't you take these places in the descriptions of poets and stay at home without experiencing the excessive heat of the sun? Wouldn't it be both more useful and less tiring for you, since you would remain cool, without movement and without the threat of illness? But the soul could not enjoy the blessings of the eyes, the windows of its abode, could not receive images of joyful places, could not see the shady valleys cut through by the play of serpentine rivers, could not see the various colors that harmoniously affect the eye with their colors, and also all that can only appear before the eye. But if a painter in the cold and harsh times of winter sets before you the same painted landscapes and others where you enjoyed, not far from some source, if you, in love, can again see yourself with your beloved on a flowering lawn, under a sweet shadow green trees, will you not get any other pleasure than listening to the description of this incident by a poet? Here the poet answers and retreats before the above arguments, but says that he is superior to the painter, because he makes people speak and reason by means of various inventions, and he invents things that do not exist; and that he would induce the men to take up arms; and that he will describe the sky, the stars, and nature, and the arts, and everything in general. To which the answer follows, that none of the things he talks about is the subject of his own business, but that if he wishes to speak and orate, he will have to make sure that in this he is defeated by the orator; and if he speaks of astrology, then he has stolen it from the astrologer, and if of philosophy, then from the philosopher, and that in reality poetry has no pulpit of its own and deserves it no more than a petty merchant, a collector of goods made by various artisans. But the deity of the science of painting considers works both human and divine, insofar as they are limited by their surfaces, that is, by the lines of the boundary of bodies; with them it indicates to the sculptor the perfection of his statues. With its basis, that is, with its drawing, it teaches the architect to act in such a way that his building is pleasing to the eye, it also teaches the inventors of various vases, it also teaches jewelers, weavers, embroiderers; it invented the letters by which different languages ​​are expressed, it gave carats to arithmeticians, it taught the drawing of geometry, it teaches perspectiveists and astrologers, as well as machine builders and engineers.

The poet says that his science is fiction and measure; but that this is only the body of poetry: fiction of content and measure in verse; and only then does he clothe himself with all the sciences. To this the painter replies that he has the same obligations in the science of painting, that is, fiction and measure; inventing the content that he must portray, and the measure in the written subjects so that they are not disproportionate; but that he does not dress up in these three sciences - on the contrary, others dress up in large part in painting, such as astrology, which does nothing without perspective, the latter is the main component of painting; and it is precisely mathematical astrology, I am not talking about false speculative astrology - let the one who lives it through the mediation of fools excuse me. The poet says that he describes one object, which is another, full of beautiful maxims. The painter says that he is free to do the same and that in this he is also a poet. And if the poet says that he kindles people to love, the most important thing for all kinds of living beings, then the painter has the power to do the same, and all the more so since he puts his own image of the beloved object in front of the lover, who, kissing it and turning to it with speech, often does what he would not do with the same beauties set before him by the writer; it strikes the mind of people all the more because it makes them love and fall in love with a picture that does not depict any living woman at all. I myself at one time happened to paint a picture representing something divine; she was bought by someone in love with her and wanted to deprive her of her divine appearance in order to be able to kiss her without fear. In the end, conscience won over sighs and voluptuousness, but he had to remove the painting from his house. So go, poet, describe beauty without depicting a living object, and induce people to such desires with it. If you say: I will describe to you hell or paradise and other pleasures or horrors, then the painter will surpass you, since he will set before you things that will silently speak of such pleasures or will terrify you and prompt your soul to flee; painting sets the feelings in motion rather than poetry. And if you say that with words you will induce the people to cry or to laugh, then I will tell you that it is not you who move them, but the orator, and this science is not poetry. The painter will lead to laughter, but not to weeping, because weeping is a stronger state than laughter. One painter painted a picture, and whoever looked at it immediately yawned, and this state was repeated all the time while the eyes were directed at the picture, which also depicted yawning. Others painted poses lascivious and so voluptuous that they induced their spectators to the same amusements that poetry will not do. And if you describe the image of some deities, then this description will not be as revered as a written deity, because such a picture will constantly bring vows and all kinds of prayers, different generations will gather to it from many countries and because of the eastern seas, and they will ask for help from such a picture, and not from scripture.

When on the birthday of King Matthew the poet brought him a work praising the day when this king was born for the good of the world, and the painter gave him a portrait of his beloved, the king immediately closed the poet’s book, turned to the picture and fixed his gaze on it with great admiration. Then the poet, in great indignation, said: "O king, read, read, and you will feel that this is a subject more meaningful than a silent picture."

Then the king, hearing that he was being reproached for looking at mute objects, said: “O poet, shut up, you do not know what you are saying; this picture serves a better feeling than yours, which is meant for the blind. Give me something that I could see and touch, and not just listen to, and do not blame my choice for putting your work under my elbow, and I hold the work of the painter with both hands, fixing my eyes on it; for the hands of their own accord undertook to serve a worthier feeling than hearing. I believe that the same relation should be between the science of the painter and the science of the poet, as there is between the corresponding feelings, the objects of which they are made. Don't you know that our soul consists of harmony, and harmony is born only in those moments when the proportionality of objects becomes visible or audible? Do you not see that in your science there is no proportionality created in an instant; on the contrary, one part will be born from another successively, and the next one will not be born if the previous one does not die? Therefore, I believe that your invention is much lower than the invention of the painter, and only because it does not add up to harmonic proportionality. It does not please the soul of the listener or viewer, as does the proportionality of the most beautiful parts that make up the divine beauties of the face in front of me. They, gathered all together at the same time, give me such pleasure in their divine proportions that there is, I believe, no other man-made thing on earth that could give greater pleasure. There is no such a senseless judgment that, given the choice of either eternal darkness or hearing loss, would not immediately prefer to lose their hearing along with their sense of smell, rather than remain blind. After all, the one who loses his sight loses the beauty of the world with all the forms of created things, and the deaf loses only the sound created by the movement of shaken air, an insignificant thing in the world. To you who say that science is all the more noble, the more worthy the subject to which it extends, and that therefore the false representation of the essence of the deity is worth more than the representation of a less worthy subject, we will say to this: painting, which only extends to the creations of God , is more worthy than poetry, which extends only to the false inventions of human creations.

After we have come to the conclusion that poetry is eminently comprehensible to the blind, and painting equally to the deaf, we will say: painting is as much more valuable than poetry as painting serves a better and nobler feeling than poetry; it is proved that this nobility is three times greater than the nobility of the other three senses, since it was preferable to lose hearing, smell and touch rather than the sense of sight. After all, the one who has lost his sight loses the appearance and beauty of the universe and becomes like one who is locked alive in the grave, where he has movement and life. Do you not see that the eye embraces the beauty of the whole world? He is the chief of astrology; he creates cosmography, he advises and corrects all human arts, he moves man to different parts of the world; he is the sovereign of the mathematical sciences, his sciences are the most reliable; he measured the height and magnitude of the stars, he found the elements and their positions. He made it possible to predict the future through the running of the stars, he gave rise to architecture and perspective, he gave rise to divine painting. O most excellent one, you are superior to all other things created by God! What should be the praises so that they can express your nobility? What peoples, what languages ​​could fully describe your true activity?

He is the window of the human body, through him the soul contemplates the beauty of the world and enjoys it, through him the soul rejoices in the human prison, without him this human prison is torture. With its help, human ingenuity has found a fire by which the eye regains what the darkness had previously taken from it. He beautified nature with agriculture and delightful gardens.

But what need do I have to spread in such high and long speeches - is there anything at all that would not be done by him? He moves people from east to west, he invented navigation and surpasses nature in that simple natural things are finite, and works performed by the hands at the command of the eye are endless, as the painter proves by inventing the endless forms of animals and grasses, trees and places.

With regard to the representation of bodily objects, there is the same difference between a painter and a poet as there is between dismembered bodies and whole bodies, since the poet, when describing the beauty or ugliness of a body, shows it to you in parts and at different times, but the painter lets you see it. all at the same time. The poet cannot represent in words the true figure of the members of the body that form a whole, but the painter puts them before you with such truth as is possible in nature. The same thing happens to a poet as to a musician singing solo a song written for four singers, first in treble, then in tenor, then in contralto, and finally in bass; as a result, you will not get the charm of harmonic proportionality, enclosed in harmonic rhythms. The poet acts in the same way as a beautiful face that shows itself in parts: in doing so, it will never leave you satisfied with its beauty, which consists only in the divine proportion of the above-named members, put together, which only in one time are added to this divine harmony of combination. parts, often taking away the former freedom of the one who sees them. Music still creates, in its harmonic rhythm, tender melodies composed of its various voices; in the poet they are deprived of their harmonic arrangement, and although poetry ascends through the sense of hearing to the seat of judgment in the same way as music, the poet still cannot describe the harmony of music, since he is not able to say different things at the same time; while the harmonious proportion of painting is formed at one time from various parts, and a judgment is made about their beauty at one time, both in general and in particular; in general - insofar as the folded whole is meant, in particular - insofar as there are terms that make up this whole; and therefore the poet remains far behind the painter in regard to the representation of bodily objects, and behind the musician in respect of the representation of invisible things. If the poet borrows the help of other sciences, then he can show himself at fairs, like other merchants, peddlers of various things made by many inventors; and the poet does just that, borrowing from other sciences, such as the orator, the philosopher, the astrologer, the cosmographer, and the like, whose sciences are completely separate from the poet. So, he turns out to be a broker, bringing together various people to make a bargain, and if you wanted to find your own occupation as a poet, you would find that he is nothing more than a collector of things stolen from various sciences, from which he makes a false a mixture, or, if you want to put it more honorably, an invented mixture. And in such freedom of invention, the poet equates himself with the painter, and this is precisely the weakest part of painting.

Music cannot be called otherwise than the sister of painting, since it is the object of hearing, the second sense after the eye, and creates harmony by the combination of its proportional parts, created at the same time and forced to be born and die in one or more harmonic rhythms; these rhythms embrace the proportionality of the individual members, from which this harmony is composed, only as a general outline embraces the individual members, from which human beauty is born. But painting surpasses music and dominates it, for it does not die immediately after its birth, like unfortunate music; on the contrary, it remains in being, and what is really only a surface shows itself to you as living. O wondrous science, you keep alive the mortal beauties of mortals, making them more durable than the creations of nature, constantly changed by time, which brings them to inevitable old age. And between this science and divine nature there is the same relation as between her creations and the creations of nature, and for this she is revered.

Although the objects opposite the eye touch each other and gradually move away, nevertheless I will give my rule of distance from 20 to 20 cubits, as the musician did with respect to sounds; although they are united and connected together, nevertheless he uses a few degrees from sound to sound, calling them prima, second, third, fourth and fifth, and so from degree to degree he established names for a variety of rises and falls of sound. If you, musician, say that painting is mechanical because it is performed by action, then music is also performed by the mouth, the human organ, but not through the sense of taste, just as the hand of the painter is not through the sense of touch. Less worthy, moreover, are words compared with deeds; but you, scribe of the sciences, don't you copy with your hand, writing down what is in the mind, as the painter does? And if you said that music consists of proportion, then it was with it that I traced painting, as you will see.

Portrait of Ginevra de Bengui, 1474-1476

Music has two diseases, one of which leads to death and the other to decrepitude; the one that leads to death is always connected with the moment following the moment of its birth, the one that leads to decrepitude makes it hateful and pitiful in its repetitions.

Between painting and sculpture, I do not find any other difference than the following: the sculptor produces his creations with more bodily labor than the painter, and the painter produces his creation with greater labor of the mind. It has been proven that this is so, for the sculptor, when working on his work, by the strength of his hands and blows, must destroy the excess marble or other stone sticking out of the figure that is enclosed within it, by means of the most mechanical actions, often accompanied by great sweat, mixed with dust and turned into into the mud, with his face stuck up with this dough, and all, as if with flour, sprinkled with marble dust, the sculptor seems to be a baker; and it is all covered with small fragments, as if covered with snow; and the dwelling is dirty and full of stone fragments and dust. Quite the opposite happens with the painter - we are talking about outstanding painters and sculptors - because the painter sits with great comfort in front of his work, well-dressed, and moves the lightest brush with charming colors, and he is dressed in clothes as he pleases. And his dwelling is full of charming pictures and clean. And often he is accompanied by music or readers of various and beautiful works, which are listened to with great pleasure, without interfering with the clatter of hammers or other noise. In addition, the sculptor, when finishing his work, must make many contours for each round figure, so that such a figure as a result turns out to be charming from all points of view. But these contours can only be made by respecting the bulges and depressions, which cannot be done correctly unless one moves aside so that its profile is visible, that is, so that the boundaries of the concave and convex parts are seen adjoining the air that comes into contact with them. This does not really increase the work of the artist, considering that he, like the painter, has a true knowledge of all the outlines of visible things at any turn, which knowledge for both the painter and the sculptor is always within his capabilities. But since the sculptor must take out where he wants to make spaces between the muscles, and leave them where he wants to make these muscles protrude, he cannot give them the required figure - beyond the fact that he gave them length and width - if he does not stoop, bend or rise in such a way as to see the true height of the muscles and the true depth of their spaces; the sculptor judges them from this place, and in this way the contours are corrected; otherwise he will never correctly establish the boundaries or true figures of his sculptures. And they say that this is the mental labor of a sculptor, but in fact there is nothing here but bodily labor, since as far as the mind is concerned, or - I will say - judgment, it should only correct the outlines of the members of the body in profile where the muscles are too high. This is usually how a sculptor completes his works; this custom is guided by a true knowledge of all the boundaries of the figures of the body at any turn. The sculptor says that if he removes the excess, then he cannot add, like a painter. To this follows the answer: if his art is perfect, he must, by means of knowledge of measures, remove as much as is sufficient, and not superfluous; [mistaken] filming is engendered by his ignorance, causing him to film more or less than he should. But I do not talk about them, since they are not masters, but the destroyers of marble. Masters do not trust the judgment of the eye, because it always deceives, as it has been proven: whoever wants to divide a line into two equal parts, guided by the judgment of the eye, experience often deceives him. Because of this apprehension, good judges are always on guard - which the ignorant do not - and therefore continually advance, guided by the knowledge of the measures of each length, thickness and breadth of the limbs of the body, and in doing so, they do not take away more than their due. The painter has ten different considerations, by means of which he completes his work, namely: light, darkness, color, body, figure, place, remoteness, proximity, movement and rest. The sculptor should discuss only the body, figure, place, movement and rest. He does not care about darkness and light, since nature itself gives rise to them in his sculptures; about color - nothing; about remoteness and proximity, he cares half, that is, he uses only a linear perspective, but not the perspective of colors that change at different distances from the eye in color and in the distinctness of their boundaries and figures. So, sculpture requires less reasoning and therefore requires less labor for the mind than painting.

Since I was no less involved in sculpture than in painting, and worked both in one and in the other to the same extent, it seems to me that I, without causing special reproaches, could express an opinion which of them is characterized by more strength of mind, difficulties and perfection.

Firstly, sculpture requires a certain lighting, namely, from above, while painting brings both lighting and shadow with it everywhere. Lighting and shadow are thus very important for sculpture. The sculptor in this case is helped by the nature of the relief, which generates them from itself; and the painter makes them with art brought from himself in those places where nature would reasonably make them. The sculptor is inaccessible to the diversity of the nature of the colors of objects, while painting does not retreat before anything. The perspectives of the sculptors do not seem true at all, but the perspectives of the painter lead a hundred miles beyond the picture, and the aerial perspective is far from it. Sculptors cannot depict transparent bodies, nor can they depict luminous bodies, nor reflected rays, nor shiny bodies, such as mirrors and similar polished things, nor clouds, nor cloudy weather, nor an infinite number of things that I do not name, so as not to get bored . It is characteristic of sculpture only that it is more resistant to time, although painting made on thick copper, covered with white enamel and painted over with enamel paints, placed in fire and burned, has the same strength. It is superior in durability to sculpture. The sculptor may say that where he made a mistake, it is not easy for him to correct it. This is a weak argument when one wants to prove that incorrigible stupidity makes a work more worthy. But I will rightly say that it is more difficult to correct the mind of the master who makes such mistakes than to correct the work that he has spoiled.

We know full well that he who has sufficient practice will not make such mistakes; on the contrary, he will advance with good rules, filming enough at a time to perform his work well.

Likewise, the sculptor, if he works in clay or wax, can both take away and apply, and, having finished, easily casts it in bronze. This is the last work and the most durable of all that sculpture has, for that which is made only of marble is subject to destruction, which does not happen with bronze.

So, painting made on copper, in which, as was said about painting, you can both remove and superimpose, is completely equal to sculpture in bronze: after all, when you worked in wax, you could remove and superimpose in the same way; this painting on copper with glaze is also eminently durable, since bronze sculpture is durable. And if the bronze becomes black and brown, then this painting is full of various and pleasant colors and is infinitely varied, as was said above; if someone wanted to talk only about painting on a wooden board, then I would agree with this in relation to sculpture, and I will say this: if painting is more beautiful, more fantastic and richer, then sculpture is more durable, because it has nothing else no. Sculpture with a little effort shows what seems to be an amazing thing in painting: to make impalpable things seem tangible, in relief - things are flat, distant - things close! And sure enough, painting is embellished with endless reflections that sculpture does not use.

The first miracle that appears in painting is that it seems to detach itself from the wall or from another plane and deceive subtle judgments by not detaching itself from the surface of the wall; in this respect the sculptor performs his works in such a way that they seem to be exactly what they are; and this is the reason why it is necessary for the painter to observe such distinctness in the shadows that they are companions of the lights. The sculptor does not need such a science, since nature helps his works, as well as all other bodily objects. If light is taken away from them, then they will turn out to be the same color, and if light is returned to them, then they will be of different colors, that is, light or dark. The second thing that requires a great deal of thought from the painter is that he should, with subtle discretion, impose the true qualities and quantities of shadows and lights. And nature itself imposes them on the works of the sculptor. The third is perspective, the subtlest research and invention based on the study of mathematics, which, by the power of lines, makes what is close appear distant, and what is small appears large. And here, in this case, nature helps sculpture, and it acts on its own, without the inventions of the sculptor.

Gorchakov Nikolai Mikhailovich

THE LIFE DESCRIPTION OF BERNA OF THE SIENAN PAINTER If those who strive to achieve excellence in any valor had not broken the thread of life very often in the best years, there is no doubt that many talents would have reached the stage that is most desirable for

From the book Treatise on Painting author Da Vinci Leonardo

From the book Who's Who in the Art World author Sitnikov Vitaly Pavlovich

LIFE DESCRIPTION OF ANTONIO VENEZIANO THE PAINTER Many of those who, remaining in their own country where they were born, would be tormented by the bites of someone else's envy and would be oppressed by the tyranny of their fellow citizens, move away from there and, choosing other places as their homeland, find recognition and reward there

From the author's book

From the author's book

THE LIFE OF ANTONIO FROM CORREGGIO THE PAINTER I do not want to go beyond the borders of the very country where the great mother nature, in order not to be convicted of predilection, gave the world the rarest people, like those with which she adorned Tuscany for many, many years, and among whom

From the author's book

THE LIFE DESCRIPTION OF GIROLAMO FROM TREVIGIO, THE PAINTER It rarely happens that artists who were born in a particular locality and continue to work in their homeland are exalted by fate to the well-being that their skill deserves, while, seeking recognition

From the author's book

LIFE DESCRIPTION OF A ROSSO-FLORENTINE PAINTER It happens sometimes that people who are devoted to their work and give it all their strength, suddenly, when the least of all could be expected, are exalted beyond all measure and in the face of the whole world will be exalted and glorified, as is clearly seen.

From the author's book

From the author's book

LIFE DESCRIPTION OF MARCO OF CALABRIANS PAINTER When a great light is born in the world in any science, its radiance, where with a large flame, and where with a smaller one, but everywhere illuminates everything with itself, and the miracles it creates are, depending on the place and air, then greater, then smaller.

From the author's book

From the author's book

Education of a painter * * *Pity is the student who does not surpass his teacher.* * *There are many people who have the desire and love for drawing, but are incapable. This is learned from boys who are not diligent and never finish their things with shadows.

Reflections of the compiler on the margins of the project "Lines of the Day" - poems by Russian poets of the 19th-21st centuries, distributed by the dates of their writing - from January 1 to December 31

Text: Dmitry Shevarov
Photo: “Poetry of Russia. Wall calendar for 2016»/fiction.eksmo.ru

When did poetry begin to leave our lives? It’s hard to say, because he also complained: “Readers have become colder at heart and indifferent to the poetry of life.” A hundred years later, Mikhail Bakhtin came up with a formula according to which lyricism is possible only in an atmosphere of warmth and responsiveness.

And after that it is clear why we, who live on the run, in a draft, feel the lack of poetry, like an acute deficiency in the body of some vital vitamin. And even those who are indifferent to poetry feel it, because the poetry of life is not rhymed lines as such, but a worldview, a kind of soul-elevating melody.

"Lines of the Day" includes poems by Russian poets of the 19th-21st centuries, divided by the dates of their writing - from January 1 to December 31.

The date at the end of a poem is usually the last thing our eyes fall on when we want to turn the page of a poetry collection. And the eyes do not always linger on this finely typed line. In many books, there are no dates under the poems at all, since the authors either did not attach any importance to the dating of their works, or the dates were lost along with the manuscripts.

It just so happened that even philologists, literary historians rarely perceive the date as the crowning achievement of a poem, it is something auxiliary for them.

At the same time, everyone will agree that if a poet put the date, month and year (and sometimes even the hour!) under a newly written poem, then this can hardly be considered an empty formality, a tribute to habit. After all, even the poets who dated many of their poems (A. Fet, A. Zhemchuzhnikov, ...) did not always do this.

The date appeared under the poem only if it was born as if “Out of nothing, out of nowhere. // There is no explanation for the miracle…”(). And the poet - consciously or intuitively - sought to fix that precious moment when inspiration descended on him.

There was, perhaps, the latent hope of the author that someday there will be the same number on the calendar, and it was then that these verses would suddenly resonate in someone's soul. The date of the day and month the poet calls us, the descendants.

Sometimes the date set by the poet in the manuscript is a kind of cipher that is designed to hide something very personal and secret from the reader.

Here, for example, are love poems by Yevgeny Baratynsky:

I was loved, you said
I often tender vows,
Keep priceless dreams
Words warmed by your soul;
No, I can not believe them:
I was loved, I was loved!

Still the same me, my love
My fate has not changed:
I remember the happiness of the old days
Though maybe I forgot it
I forgot my dear,
But the same me, still the same me!

There is no way for me to meet her.
Alas! when I appeared cute, -
Of course, bring pity
It could have been my dull look.
One dream of my soul -
Date with her, date with her.

Cunning love, no way she
My romance inspires me now;
Her excitement is full
My darling is reading
Breathe the love of the past again.
Cunning love, cunning love!

There is nothing unusual in this poem, except for the date: November 31, 1825. There is no such number in the generally accepted calendar. But with one stroke of the pen he introduces November 31 into the calendar of Russian poetry. One can argue about whether this is a mistake, a hoax, or the poet was seriously convinced that it was precisely this number that Russian people lack for happiness - but there is an album by cousin Natalie, where this number is clearly indicated by the poet's hand. There is the most authoritative collection of works by Baratynsky, prepared by M. Hoffmann at the beginning of the 20th century, where under the poem "I was loved, you said..." The date is November 31st.

During the life of the poet, the poem was not published, so it is difficult to say whether he would have made corrections to the publication or would have left this riddle to us. By the way, there are enough riddles in the manuscript. In the album, under the poem, the signature is by an unknown hand: “In Moscow. Dim on joua aujourd'hui Freischutz. Composé par Eugène Boratinsky mon cousin Nathalie. Translation: “Sunday, today we played Free Rifleman. Composed by Yevgeny Boratynsky, my cousin Natalia.

"Free Shooter" - an opera by K. Weber. But about cousin Natalia, alas, we do not know anything. And yet: could the date "November 31" be a poet's joke? This is supported by the fact that the poem itself is written with a smile. Perhaps, but still, poets rarely joke with dates. Yes, and the time for jokes is not quite right: the country is in mourning for Emperor Alexander I. Yes, and not in the nature of the Baratynsky draw. He said: “There are a lot of funny things in Russia, but I’m not in the mood to laugh ...” In the same November 1825 he wrote to a friend: “Fate has not become more merciful for me ... Now the most difficult era in my life begins ...”

It is also hard to believe in a random error in the date. According to the memoirs of his contemporaries, Baratynsky was an extremely pedantic person. He did not suffer from distraction. All memoirists speak of his clear and strict mind. “It was hardly possible to meet a person smarter than him”? - recalled Prince P. A. Vyazemsky. At the same time, he was "witty, playful, but all this as an intelligent person, and not as a poet."

If you look at the portraits of Baratynsky, they will immediately remind you of Oleg Yankovsky. That's who could brilliantly play Baratynsky in a movie! And after all, there is a wonderful novel about a poet (“Ailment of Being” was written by Dmitry Golubkov in the late 1960s), and it could have been filmed long ago. But the time has passed. And we are left with "The same Munchausen", where, by will, nothing remains in the main character from the funny German baron who composed fables. There are as many barons in Gorinsky Munchausen as there were in Baron Delvig. This is generally a very Russian twist of fate: they filmed about something distant, alien and funny, but it turned out - about something close, ours and tragic. It turned out that Munchausen is a Russian poet. And Yankovsky is painfully similar to Baratynsky. “Such people look at life without joking,- a contemporary wrote about Baratynsky, - understand its lofty secret, understand the importance of their destination, and together relentlessly feel the poverty of earthly existence.

By the way, remember: Munchausen in the film dates his letter to May 32, to which everyone shouts to him: "There is no such number!" And he tries to explain: “Listen, finally! .. I opened a new day. This is one of the greatest discoveries, and maybe the most-most ... I went to him through years of reflection, observation ... And now it has come - the thirty-second! .. "

It seems to me that Yevgeny Baratynsky, who called his famous collection "Twilight", knew how it draws us towards the light in November, how precious even small gifts are to us at this time. So he gave us another day of autumn.

How surprising it is that there is no empty day in the calendar for Russian poetry.

Of course, not all days are fruitful in Boldino style, but each should be considered as the birthday of one or another classical poem. And this means that you can live all year round with Russian poets, in tune with their high feelings and thoughts, with their sensitive attention to everything that happens in nature, outside the window.

Poetry, like an airship, takes us through the abysses of time, and we are reunited with the era of our ancestors as with the era of our relatives not only by blood, but also by the spirit of people.

Unfortunately, the poets of the late 20th and early 21st centuries became careless with dates (which is why you will also find undated poems in Lines of the Day). Only a few modern poets record the time of creation of one or another of their poetic texts. With special gratitude, I want to name one of my favorite poets, Larisa Miller: for six years now she has been keeping an unparalleled poetic diary in LiveJournal “Poems in single file: new and old” - a daily (!) replenished author's collection of poems from different years.

I once asked a poet: “What plan does the Lord have when he sends a poet into the world? What for? For what?.."

Novella Nikolaevna thought for a moment, and then answered: “Probably, after all, to awaken conscience in people. Poets, if they are real poets, they are somewhere close to priests. They rush us to good ... "

Soon, in the Neskuchny Sad magazine, I read the response of the priest (and at the same time a wonderful poet) Sergiy Kruglov to the schoolgirl Katya, who wrote a letter full of doubts to the editor. Katya was asked at school to learn one of Blok's textbook poems, and it seemed to her that it contradicted the belief that "a believer would not write like that."

Here is what father Sergius writes to Katya: “Hello, Catherine! .. The mention of poetry could not but hurt me: I have been writing poetry for a quarter of a century. And I've been a priest for ten years. I was baptized quite late, at the age of 30, but I did not escape the initial stage of entering the Church, through which everyone passes ... In the impulse of a neophyte, I destroyed all my poems (and by that time I had publications both in Russia and abroad), I threw the books in the trash, considering all this, in your words, "not by faith." And for several years the poems did not return to me... And then they returned, although already on a different, Christian level. It turned out that poetry and faith are not enemies, but friends.

Poetry is God's gift to man, the very gospel talent that should not be buried in the ground, but should be developed and served by one's neighbor. After all, the holy fathers also call God Himself “Poet”, “Creator” ... I realized that from God - not only what is in the church fence, but in general all that is good on earth and in people ... "

I will conclude my protracted story with the words of the compiler of one of the first Russian poetic anthologies. Here is how he wrote on December 17, 1810, anticipating his "Collected Russian Poems": “We think that our Assembly, with all the shortcomings that may be hidden in it, should be received with pleasure from any lover of poetry. Repenting in advance of our carelessness and ignorance, we ask the reader to enlighten us with their advice ... "

METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

on this topic:

"Family law"

Discipline: "Social science"

Course 1

Folomkina Natalya Borisovna

teacher of social disciplines

GAPOU SO "Balashov Medical College"

Arcadak branch

2017

CONTENT

1.Introduction………………………………………………………………………….3

2.Feature of the theme:“Family Law” …………………………………..3

3. The distribution of working time in the classroom…………………….5

3. Logistics support of the lesson………………………...….5

4. Lesson plan…………………………………………………………..……….5

5. Content of theoretical material………………………………………...6

6. Control and evaluation material…………………………………..………..12

7.Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….16

8.Sources………………………………………………………………………..16

9.Appendices……………………………………………………………......................17

Introduction

We live in the 21st century, in an era of unprecedented speeds, super-new technologies, and a humanitarian transformation of the world. In this information age, there is an expansion of horizons, replenishment of knowledge, mastery of related professions. Instant switching from one branch of knowledge to another, frequent job changes and timely response to changes in the situation on the labor market, lifelong learning - all this outlines the contours of the world in which you will live.

The coming era is the time when the social sciences will play an ever greater role in the system of scientific and practical knowledge.

Social science is necessary today for literally everyone. It is necessary for all citizens of Russia, regardless of their profession. The transition from older adolescence to youthful age is a time for posing and solving cardinal problems for oneself about the meaning of life and life values. That is why questions about the family, the legal foundations of marriage and family, family values ​​are reflected in the proposed topic.

The development of new content is carried out based on interdisciplinary connections with the courses of history and literature.

Theme Feature "Family law"

Lesson objectives:

Tutorials: determine the essential characteristics of the object under study, compare, contrast, evaluate objects according to the specified criteria;

explain the studied provisions on the proposed specific examples;

solve cognitive and practical tasks that reflect typical social situations;

apply the acquired knowledge to determine the lawful and socially approved behavior and course of action in specific situations;

be able to substantiate judgments, give definitions, provide evidence (including from the contrary);

find the necessary information on a given topic in sources of various types and extract the necessary information from sources created in various sign systems (text, table, graph, diagram, audiovisual series, etc.).

be able to speak on the proposed situations and apply the knowledge gained in a new situation.

Developing: develop thinking, develop students' memory and ability for active mental activity, develop role-playing skills, stimulate and strengthen the motivation for independent study of the discipline.

Educators: to cultivate civic responsibility, legal self-awareness, tolerance, commitment to humanistic and democratic values; instill in students diligence, discipline, accuracy; to form interest in the study of the discipline; develop a positive attitude towards learning; to form students' cognitive interest, the desire for a better mastery of knowledge; develop a sense of the importance of the chosen profession.

Students should be able to:

characterize the main social objects, highlighting their essential features, patterns of development;

analyze up-to-date information about social objects, identifying their common features and differences; to establish correspondences between the essential features and signs of the studied social phenomena;

explain: causal relationships of the studied social objects (including the interaction of parents and children, families and the state);

to reveal the studied theoretical positions and concepts on examples;

search for social information presented in various sign systems; extract from unadapted original texts

(legal, popular science, journalistic, etc.) knowledge on a given topic; systematize, analyze and generalize disordered social information; distinguish between facts and opinions, arguments and conclusions;

evaluate the actions of subjects in terms of social norms;

to formulate, on the basis of acquired social science knowledge, one's own judgments and arguments on certain problems;

to prepare a creative work on this topic.

Students should know:

the concept of family and marriage,

rights and obligations of spouses,

legal relations between parents and children, family and state;

development trends of the family as a social institution.

Distribution of working time in a training session :

Lesson content

Time

Guidelines

1. Organizational moment

1 min.

Mobilize students for work

2. Formulation of the topic, its motivation

2 min.

Reveal the theoretical significance of the topic

3. Determination of the objectives of the lesson

2 min.

Show students the end result

4. Work on the studied material

75 min.

Deepening and expanding knowledge on the topic

5.Fixation of new material

5 minutes.

Control of the level of assimilation of educational material

6. Summing up the lesson. Homework

5 minutes.

Analysis of the achievement of the goal, summing up the results of the lesson, orientation towards preparation for the next lesson

Logistics of the lesson: projector, screen, computers.

Lesson plan:

1. The concept of family relations.

2. Procedure, conditions for the conclusion and dissolution of marriage.

3. Rights and obligations of spouses.

3. Marriage contract.

4. Legal relations between parents and children. Guardianship and guardianship.

"If you don't think about the future, you won't have it"?J. Galsworthy

1. Family relationships are not always regulatedruled by law. No law can force people to love, be loyal, or help each other inhousehold. But at the same time, there is an urgentthe need to protect the legal status of husband and wife, children and parents, securing their rights and obligations.

Even in Roman law, there was a provision that the family is formed through marriage, and marriage is "the union of husband and wife." The law distinguished between marriages in which the man was dominant and marriages in which the wife was independent. The age of marriage in ancient Rome was set at 12 for girls and 14 for boys. The marriage procedure was reduced to the conclusion of an agreement between the groom and the father or guardian of the bride.

In modern law, there is a special branch within which the norms regulating the property and personal non-property relations of spouses, parents and children, as well as determining the procedure for entering into a marriage and its dissolution, are systematized.

When people get married, they strive to create a family and run a common household.

Marriage is a voluntary union of one man and one woman for the purpose of creating a family.

Important sources of family law are the Family Code of the Russian Federation, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Family - a group of people united with each other on the basis of kinship or on the basis of marriage for the purpose of living together and maintaining a common household.

The proposal of a legal marriage from time immemorial in Russia was called matchmaking. Matchmakers (friends, relatives of the groom) went to the bride's parents. Usually feasts were arranged on this day, during which the groom and the matchmakers asked the bride's parents for permission to marry.There were also professional matchmakers. Their services are oftenused by wealthy suitors. The matchmakers had an exhaustiveinformation about the bride, dowry and agreed on the bride. Such an event meant the acquaintance of the groom with the bride. Byat the end of the show, the groom went out onto the porch to thinksolutions. Upon his return, a glass of honey was brought to him. If hedecided to marry this girl, he drank the offeringentirely. After that, everyone agreed on an engagement. So calledofficialannouncement of a girl and a young man as a bride and groom. On the day of the engagement, the groom gave the bride a ring with a precious stone. Preparations for the wedding could last from several weeks to a year. On the day of the wedding, the groom sent a casket with a veil and flowers, wedding candles and wedding rings to a city girl. It was believed that the bride's dress should be white, and the head must be covered with a veil (veil). During weddings, witchcraft and corruption were feared. Two nails were driven crosswise into the door jamb of the house. So they drove away evil spirits.

In modern Russian legislation, marriage requires the mutual voluntary consent of a man and a woman and the achievement of marriageable age by them. In our country, the age of marriage is set at 18 years. If there are a number of good reasons, it can be reduced.

2. Marriage is concluded in the civil registry offices (ZAGS). The rights and obligations of spouses arise from the date of state registration of marriage. Marriage is concluded in the personal presence of the persons entering into marriage. Prior to this, the bride and groom submit an application to the registry office.

In the presence of special circumstances (pregnancy, birth of a child, immediate threat to the life of one of the parties and other special circumstances), marriage can be concluded on the day of application. The refusal of the registry office to register a marriage can be appealed in court.

When registering a marriage, the spouses, at their request, are assigned the surname of one of them as a common surname, or each retains his premarital surname.

Marriage is not allowed between:

persons, of which at least one is already in another registered marriage;

close relatives;

adoptive parents and adopted children;

persons, of which at least one person is recognized as incompetent.

Divorce can be done either at the registry office or in court.

With mutual consent to the dissolution of the marriage of spouses who do not have common minor children, the dissolution of the marriage is carried out in the registry office. The same procedure is provided for in the event of divorce at the request of one of the spouses, regardless of whether the spouses have common minor children, if the other spouse is recognized by the court as incompetent.

In a judicial proceeding, a marriage is dissolved if the spouses have common minor children, in the absence of the consent of one of the spouses to the dissolution of the marriage, and also if one of the spouses, despite the absence of objections, evades the dissolution of the marriage in the registry office.

3. There are property and personal non-property rights of spouses,

Personal non-property rights include: freedom to choose a surname, place of residence, professional activity, joint decision on the upbringing of children and their education, etc. At the same time, when resolving any legal issues, the equality of the parties is recognized.

The property rights of spouses are regulated by legislative acts. In this case, we are talking about the legal regime of property of the spouses. The marriage contract establishes the contractual regime of property of the spouses.

Property acquired by spouses during marriage is their joint property.

The common property of the spouses includes: the income of each of the spouses from labor, entrepreneurial and intellectual activities; pensions, benefits received by them, as well as other cash payments that do not have a special purpose (amounts of material assistance, amounts paid in compensation for damage in connection with disability due to injury or other damage to health, etc.).

The common property of the spouses is also movable and immovable things acquired at the expense of the joint income of the spouses, securities, shares, deposits, shares in capital contributed to credit institutions or other commercial organizations, and any other property acquired by the spouses during the marriage, regardless of whether in the name of which of the spouses it was acquired or in the name of which or by which of the spouses the funds were deposited.

The right to the common property of the spouses also belongs to the spouse who, during the period of marriage, was engaged in housekeeping, caring for children or, for other valid reasons, did not have an independent income.

Along with common joint property, each of the spouses also has personal property. It includes: property that belonged to each of the spouses before marriage; property received by one of the spouses during marriage as a gift, by inheritance or by other gratuitous transactions; items for personal use, with the exception of jewelry and other luxury items.

The contractual regime of property of the spouses establishes a special document - the marriage contract.

4. A marriage contract is an agreement between persons who create a family and will register their relationship with state bodies by entering into marriage, or an agreement between spouses who are already married, which determines the property rights and obligations of spouses in marriage and (or) in case of its dissolution.

A prenuptial agreement can be concluded both before marriage, and at any time during the marriage. If the marriage contract was concluded before the registration of the marriage, it comes into force from the date of state registration of the marriage. Thanks to the marriage contract, the spouses have the right to change the regime of joint property established by law. A marriage contract can be concluded both in relation to the existing and in relation to the future property of the spouses.

A marriage contract cannot regulate personal non-property relations between spouses, the rights and obligations of spouses in relation to children.

At any time, by agreement of the spouses, the marriage contract can be changed or terminated. Unilateral refusal to perform a marriage contract is not allowed. Spouses may also enter into an agreement on the division of common property.

5. The rights and obligations of parents and children are protected and enshrined in family law. From a legal point of view, children are those who have not reached the age of majority, i.e. 18 years old.

Every child has the right to live and be brought up in a family, as far as possible; the right to know one's parents; the right to be taken care of; the right to live together with them, except in cases where this is contrary to his interests.

The child has the right to ensure his interests, all-round development, respect for his human dignity.

In the absence of parents, in case of deprivation of their parental rights and in other cases of loss of parental care, the child's right to be raised in a family is ensured by the body of guardianship and guardianship. The child has the right to communicate with both parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters and other relatives. The dissolution of the parents' marriage, its annulment or the separation of the parents does not affect the rights of the child. In the case of separation of parents, the child has the right to communicate with each of them.

The child has the right to be protected from abuse by parents (persons replacing them). He has the right to independently apply for protection to the body of guardianship and guardianship, and upon reaching the age of 14 years - to the court. The child has the right to receive maintenance from his parents and other family members.

The amounts owed to the child as alimony, pensions, allowances are at the disposal of the parents

(persons replacing them) and are spent by them on the maintenance, upbringing and education of the child.

The child has the right of ownership to income received by him, property received by him as a gift or by inheritance, as well as to any other property acquired at the expense of the child.

Parents have equal rights and bear equal responsibilities towards their children (parental rights).

Parental rights are terminated when children reach the age of eighteen years (majority), as well as when minor children enter into marriage.

Parents are responsible for the upbringing and development of their children. They are obliged to take care of the health, physical, mental, spiritual and moral development of their children. At the same time, parents have a preferential right to raise their children over all other persons.

Parents are obliged to ensure that their children receive a basic general education.

Protection of the rights and interests of children rests with their parents. Ensuring the interests of children should be the main concern of their parents.

Parental rights are considered inalienable. Therefore, their deprivation is allowed only in extremely rare cases, if the parents:

evade the fulfillment of the duties of parents, including in the case of malicious evasion from the payment of alimony;

abuse their parental rights; -

child abuse;

are patients with chronic alcoholism or drug addiction;

have committed an intentional crime against the life or health of their children or against the life or health of their spouse.

We already know that parents have an obligation to support their minor children. And at the same time, able-bodied adult children are obliged to support their disabled parents in need of help and take care of them.

Control and evaluation material

Questions

1. What is a family?

2. Why is monogamy common?

3. What factors influence the form of marriage?

4. Describe the functions of the family.

5. What is patriarchy as a type of power structure?

6. Matriarchy

7. Egalitarian family.

8. What is a neolocal residence?

9. Matrilocal residence.

10. Patrilocal residence

11. What are the duties of a wife - mother?

12. What are the duties of a husband - a father?

13. What is typical for the modern family?

14. What are the problems of incomplete families? Is it possible to overcome them and in what ways?

15. What is an incomplete family? How does the increase in the number of incomplete families affect the demographic and social situation in society?

16. What is the "point of no return" in the country's reproductive potential?

17. In the process of researching dissatisfaction with family life, the American sociologist K. Kirkpatrick identified the main expectations that one partner directs to another in a traditional family.

Responsibilities of a wife-mother

1. The birth and upbringing of children.

2. Creation and maintenance of a house, dwelling.

3. Family service

4. Devoted subordination of self-interest to the interests of the husband.

5. Adaptability to a dependent social and economic status.

6. Tolerance for a limited area of ​​activity related to the care of the household

Duties of a husband-father

1. Devotion to the mother of her children.

2. Ensuring economic stability.

3. Ensuring the safety and protection of the family.

4.Maintenance of family power and control.

5. Making major decisions.

6. Emotional gratitude and respect for the wife for her devotion to the family.

7. Maintenance of alimony in case of divorce

What family is this typical for?

18. How are the responsibilities of parents and children distributed in your family? Who is the leader in your family, mother or father? Analyze.

19. The fulfillment of duties by husband and wife may take the following forms:

a) the husband performs only his own, and the wife - her duties.

b) the husband does not fulfill his duties, but the wife does.

c) the husband performs his duties, but the wife does not.

d) the husband performs women's duties, and the wife - men's.

What will happen in each of these situations - scandal, divorce, conflict, harmony? Analyze situations.

20. What is the system of norms that establish the procedure for concluding and dissolving a marriage? Which government agency is authorized to carry out these procedures?

21. What are the personal non-property and property rights of spouses? Give examples.

22. What is a prenuptial agreement? What relationship between spouses does it regulate?

23. What are the rights and obligations that parents have in our country? In what cases can parents be deprived of parental rights?

24. What rights are given to a child in Russia? How will the divorce of his parents affect him?

25. How do you understand the meaning of the metaphor: the family is a well, and children are a stone slab protecting it?

Workshop

1. Make a table "Common and distinctive features of traditional and modern families", based on the criteria you proposed.

2. Two people are talking. The first one says:

- Most of today's developed societies have divorce rates approaching or exceeding 30%. And this is typical not only for Russia. Previously, in all countries, the family was much stronger. Perhaps humanity has entered an era of marriage crisis, and soon an effective replacement will be found for it.

The second one answers:

- Marriage and business are very risky activities. Of every 100 newly formed enterprises, 80 to 90% go bankrupt every year. Of every 100 newly formed families, less than 30% break up annually. Despite the fact that the level of losses in business is 3 times higher, no one talks about the crisis of this institution. Comparing both, we can say that marriage stands on its own feet much stronger than business, and does not experience any crisis.

Compare two points of view. Which one would you agree with? Give justification for your answer. If you can, use statistics and facts.

3. Continue listing the joint property of the spouses. The common property of the spouses includes; _________________

4. What situation is an example of family legal relations?

1) Alcoholic parents were deprived of parental rights;

2) the father and son were fined for crossing the street in the wrong place;

3) with his first salary, the son bought gifts for his parents;

4) the daughter got a job in her parents' family firm. Choose the correct answer.

5. Are the following statements about parental rights correct?

A. Parental rights terminate when children reach the age of eighteen years (majority).

B. The rights of parents cease when minor children marry.

1) Only A is true;

2) only B is true;

3) both judgments are true;

4) both judgments are wrong.

Choose the correct answer.

6. Based on your knowledge of history and additional literature, write a short story about the traditions of marriage in Russia.

7. Simulate the situation - relationships in my family(the distribution of responsibilities of parents and children, determining the role of a leader in the family) andmodel an ideal family (employment, distribution of responsibilities, leisure, raising children).Both situations are analyzed and compared.

Conclusion

Russian society is going through one of the most dynamic periods in its history. The turns and cataclysms of this historical time constantly create non-standard, critical situations that require everyone to make independent decisions. The profession of a medical worker involves constant communication with representatives of different social groups. The social environment surrounding the patient most directly affects his attitude to health problems.

The knowledge and skills acquired in the course of social studies can be used in practical activities and everyday life for:

successful performance of typical social roles;

solving practical life problems arising in social activities;

anticipating the possible consequences of certain social actions;

assessment of current events and people's behavior from the point of view of morality and law.

In this lesson, students are introduced to the essencefamily legal relations, conditions for concluding and dissolving a marriage, the rights and obligations of spouses, legal relations between parents and children.

Sources

Kravchenko A.I. Social science.-M.: Russian word, 2011

Kravchenko A.I. Fundamentals of sociology. - M.: Academy, 2010

Kravchenko A.I. Fundamentals of sociology. Methodological guide.-M.: Academy, 2010

Gogol N. V. Selected passages from correspondence with friends. - M .: Soviet Russia, 1990. - P. 46

http// www. uchportal. en

Application No. 1

THOUGHTS OF THE WISE

Agree or disagree with the poet.

Must be afraid of widow's tears,

You have not tied yourself to anyone with love.

But if a formidable fate took you away,

The whole world would put on a widow's veil.

In her child, a mournful widow

Favorite features are reflected.

And you do not leave the creature,

In which the light would find consolation.

Wealth that wastes

Changing place, remains in the world.

And beauty will vanish without a trace

And youth, having disappeared, will not return.

Who betrays himself

Doesn't love anyone in this world!

W. Shakespeare

Application №2

Application №3

Fragment of the work of N. V. Gogol "What can a wife be for her husband in a simple home life in the current order of things in Russia"

Advice for a young wife

“Distribute your time: put an indispensable watch for everything. Do not stay in the morning with your husband: drive him to a position in his department, reminding him every minute that he must belong entirely to the common cause and economy of the entire state ... that he married precisely so that, freeing himself from petty worries, he would give everything to the fatherland , and the wife was given to him not to hinder his service, but to strengthen him in his service. So that all morning you work separately, each in your own field, and through this you would meet merrily before dinner and be so happy with each other, as if you had not seen each other for several years, so that you would have something to retell each other and would not regale one another with a yawn: tell him everything that you did in your house and household, and let him tell you everything that he produced in his department for the general household. You must certainly know the essence of his position, and what part of it consists of, and what things happened to him to do that day, and what exactly they consisted of. Do not neglect this, and remember that the wife should be the husband's helper. If only for one year you carefully listen to everything from him, then the next year you will even be able to give him advice, you will know how to approve him when you meet with some kind of trouble at work, you will know how to make him transfer and to endure what he would not have the spirit for, you will be his true stimulus to everything beautiful.

What function of the family does N.V. Gogol write about?

What advice from a writer who lived in the 19th century do you think a girl in the 21st century can take note of?

N.V. Gogol used the word “what” in the title of the work, which is used in relation to inanimate objects. Do you think women should be offended by the writer because of this? Justify your answer.