The history of eloquence begins in Ancient Greece. Oratory was known in Egypt, and in Assyria, and in Babylon, but in the form in which it is known to us, eloquence appeared in Hellas. The success and career of the Hellenic depended on his ability to speak beautifully: public speaking was the main weapon of a politician and lawyer, they were used to judge a person’s education. Therefore, already in the first half of the 5th century BC. Sophists appeared - paid teachers of eloquence, who conduct public discussions. The Sophists were the first to record oratorical speeches, which until then had only existed orally.

Gorgias of Leontina

One of the most famous orators of antiquity, Gorgias of Leontina, belonged to the sophists. He was not only a practitioner - a skilled rhetorician who taught young men from wealthy families to make speeches and lead a discussion. Gorgias was also a theoretician. Traveling around Hellas, he became famous for his successful performances. He convinced the Athenians to provide military assistance to their compatriots, and during another speech, to oppose the barbarians in unison. This speech, delivered at Olympia, made Gorgias a celebrity. Gorgias paid great attention to style. He developed and applied "Gorgian figures" - rhetorical devices that gave speeches poetic expressiveness. For his time, Gorgias was a great innovator: he used metaphors and comparisons, symmetrical construction of phrases, identical sentence endings to enhance persuasiveness. Few direct advice from Gorgias has survived to this day: “Refut serious arguments with a joke, jokes with seriousness.” As you can see, the Hellenes did not like too serious orators who were not able to embellish their speech with a good joke.

Demosthenes

A little later, Demosthenes lived - he is rightfully called the greatest Greek orator. Demosthenes drew attention to himself by speaking in court: the young man's guardians squandered his father's fortune, and Demosthenes sought a refund. He managed to regain only a small part, but skillful speeches at court hearings did not go unnoticed. Demosthenes dreamed of glory, he studied with the outstanding Isaius of Athens, and as an example for himself he took Pericles - the "father of Athenian democracy", a commander and a master of eloquence. In the time of Demosthenes, the Athenian public was spoiled by public performances, the listeners were sophisticated. They expected from those speaking to the public not only the beauty of the style and the deep content of speeches, but also a beautiful, almost theatrical presentation: staged gesture, facial expressions. By nature, Demosthenes could not boast of outstanding data: he had a short breath, a weak voice. He also had a habit of twitching his shoulder nervously. To overcome these shortcomings, Demosthenes used a technique well known to anyone who used diction: he spoke with pebbles in his mouth. To make his voice stronger, he rehearsed speeches on the seashore: the sound of the sea replaced the noise of the crowd. And in order to develop breathing, he read poets, climbing steep paths. He practiced facial expressions in front of a mirror. In the end, by perseverance, he overcame his shortcomings, and although the very first speeches of Demosthenes were not successful, he did not give up and subsequently made a brilliant political career.

Mark Tullius Cicero

Greece became the birthplace of oratory, it gave the world many outstanding speakers. This was required by the very way of life of the Hellenes. But the baton of eloquence was successfully picked up by Rome, which borrowed a lot from Hellas. One of the most prominent rhetoricians of Rome was Marcus Tullius Cicero. Cicero owes his dizzying career solely to his own perseverance and oratorical talent. He came from a modest, humble family and from birth had a very modest opportunity to become an influential person. However, thanks to his oratorical talent, he entered the Senate and became consul. You can learn from Cicero yourself: he left a great literary heritage that has survived to this day, and his letters formed the basis of European epistolary literature. Before becoming famous and gaining recognition, Cicero studied Greek poets and prose writers - he was fluent in Greek. His teachers were great orators: Mark Antony and Lucius Licinius Crassus. Since in the time of Cicero it was necessary to know Roman law well, the future consul studied it with Quintus Mucius Scaevola, the most popular lawyer of his time. The first success of Cicero was brought by the speech "In defense of Quinctius" - it was written and delivered in order to return illegally seized property. His second famous speech also defended the unlawfully offended: a native of the province of Roscia, who was unjustly accused of parricide. In this case, Cicero proved to be not only a brilliant orator, but also a real detective: he took the trouble to personally visit the crime scene and investigate the circumstances. Cicero's speeches were built according to all the rules of rhetoric of that time: they included direct appeals on behalf of the accused and a refutation of the arguments of the prosecution.

Abraham Lincoln

Oratory helped to make a brilliant career not only in the distant times of the Roman consuls and legionnaires. The sixteenth president of the United States and America's national hero, Abraham Lincoln also owes much to his eloquence. Although he was born into a poor family, from childhood he was drawn to education and received a law degree. Long before he became president, Lincoln became famous as an oral storyteller - people even came from afar to listen to his stories. And the Gettysburg speech, delivered by him at the opening of the National Soldiers' Cemetery, went down in history as one of the greatest speeches in the history of the United States. Lincoln took the preparation of his public speeches seriously. He thought and prepared each of his speeches for a long time, did not hesitate to discuss his own ideas at every opportunity, and was attentive to criticism. This allowed him to find brilliant arguments in defense of his position.

Winston Churchill

Churchill is a journalist, writer and Nobel Prize winner in literature, but we remember him as the Prime Minister of Great Britain. It was he who held this responsible post for most of the period of the Second World War. Winston Churchill went down in history as an unsurpassed orator. Churchill attached great importance to the emotionality of speech and the speaker's devotion to his own ideas: how can you convince others if you yourself do not believe your own words? But he attached no less importance to technology. Churchill valued simplicity and rejected everything too complex, pretentious, which would prevent listeners from catching the essence. He believed that "short words are the best," and one can learn from him to simplify his own speeches, making them clear.

Russian speakers

In Russian history, Vladimir Lenin became famous as a brilliant orator - the leader of the proletariat, although he did not have impeccable diction and delivered speech of the announcer, but had his own style, which won the hearts of people. First, Lenin would have agreed with Churchill in terms of emotionality and devotion to ideas. He was famous for his enthusiasm, obsession with his own ideas, as well as expression. Who burns himself, can kindle the hearts of others. At the same time, Lenin remained laconic in his speeches. He addressed the audience simply, without too much pathos, creating the illusion of communication on an equal footing. Another outstanding orator of Russia is Leon Trotsky. Political opponents were afraid of the influence that Trotsky knew how to exert on listeners. At that time there were no speech writers, and politicians wrote speeches on their own: Trotsky's speeches were consistent, logically verified, but at the same time emotionally charged. If you want to have before your eyes an example of a contemporary, watch Vladimir Zhirinovsky. The odious politician is famous for the fact that it is impossible to outguess him. I do not advise imitating his defiant manner of speeches, but note his truly encyclopedic knowledge and how deftly he applies it; how Zhirinovsky is always confident in himself and never allows himself to be knocked out of a rut. This is not a complete list of prominent speakers. If you want to learn more about oratory skills, come to the classes at my school "Oratoris": I conduct individual and. I will teach you how to prepare the text of a speech, own your own voice and hold yourself in front of the public like the best rhetoricians in history!

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Orenburg State Agrarian University

Department of the History of the Fatherland

abstract

Famous Russiansjudicialspeakers

Completed:

Checked by: Porol O.A.

Orenburg 2009

Plan

Introduction

1 Oratory as the art of the word

2 Kinds and types of oratory

3 Oratory structure

4 Russian judicial orators of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Oratory, oral word people valued at all times. It is an important and active means of education and training, dissemination of philosophical, aesthetic teachings, political, economic and other knowledge, comprehension of cultural values and new ideas. The true word awakens the best civic feelings, serves the goals of progress.

The speaker deals directly with people. This allows the speaker to quickly respond to topical life issues, actively promote advanced ideas, quickly respond to events, take into account the numerous interests of listeners, comment on known facts, and explain the policy of the state. The speaker addresses the conscience of people, their memory, their national, patriotic, international feelings. It raises spirituality in a person, a noble movement of the mind, puts universal human concerns, interests, and ideas in the foreground. The noble goals of knowledge, the preaching of humanism and mercy, the “discovery” of the truth elevate speech and influence the spiritual world of listeners. A true orator, putting into speech the whole depth of his intellect and the passion of his soul, acts on the minds and hearts of people.

Now many people make speeches and reports, give lectures, and hold talks. The speech activity of people has increased significantly. And it pleases. But to improve skills, of course, it is necessary to study the theory of oratory, deeply analyze the speeches of outstanding speakers, and transfer theoretical knowledge into one's own practice.

In this paper, oratory itself is considered as the art of the word, genera and types of oratory. And finally, in the fourth and final chapter, the great Russian judicial orators of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries will be considered.

1 oratorical speechlike the art of the word

The ancient theories of eloquence are included in the golden fund of rhetorical science. And, of course, to understand the essence of eloquence, it is necessary, first of all, to get acquainted with the views of the ancient rhetoricians.

In ancient rhetorical science, one can name the names of researchers who occupied a leading position in the development of the theory of eloquence. These are Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian and some others. It is their theoretical research that constitutes the platform on which further research was based.

Ancient Greece is considered the birthplace of eloquence, although oratory was known in Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and India. But it is precisely in ancient Greece that it develops rapidly, and systematic works on its theory appear for the first time. In the state of slave-owning democracy, a special atmosphere was created for the flourishing of eloquence. It becomes an essential element of social life and an instrument of political struggle. Owning it was considered a necessity. Gradually, a practical direction developed - the compilation of speeches for the needs of citizens. The first statements of practitioners about the language and style of speeches appeared. They served Plato, Aristotle and other theorists as the basis for systematizing, further developing and deepening these judgments, turning them into a theory.

Even Plato - the ancient Greek philosopher - emphasized that rhetoric, like any true art, is a creative activity. This creative activity, however, requires careful preparation. Rhetoric (Greek - oratory) is a philological discipline, the object of which is the theory of eloquence, oratory, ways of constructing expressive speech in all branches of speech activity (i.e. in different genres of written and oral speech). A good speaker needs to work hard to improve his speech. According to Plato, he should go through a special school of oratory, which would teach him to correctly, proportionately and effectively compose speeches. And Cicero, a Roman theorist, considered the most important conditions for the formation of a real orator not only natural talent, but also, most importantly, the study of oratory (theory) and exercises (practice). Since the theory of eloquence is an important philosophical and psychological doctrine, Cicero argued, it requires a serious attitude to itself.

Such a high culture of speech in the broadest sense of the term could not arise by itself. Naturally, it was stimulated by theoretical investigations in the field of oratory.

Protagoras is considered the founder of rhetorical art. A.F. Losev writes that in Diogenes we find a message about Protagoras dividing any speech into four parts: a request, a question, an answer and an order.

Plato believes that the speaker should not chase other people's opinions, but he himself should comprehend the truth of what he is going to speak about. Correct, true, accurate speech must proceed from the true definition of its object, the subject of speech. “He who intends to engage in oratory must, first of all, determine his path in it and catch what is the sign of each of its varieties.”

According to Plato, the art of the orator largely depends on the ability to cover everything with a general look, to raise disparate objects of speech to a single general idea and divide everything into types, and also to be able to build the particular to the general and get the particular from the general.

Rhetoric, like any true art, according to Plato, is a creative activity. It brings emotions, passions into a systemic, ordered state, thus embodying the highest justice. This creative activity, however, requires careful preparation of the speaker. And here Plato supports the idea of the sophists, who believed that a good speaker should work hard on self-improvement and speeches. Plato's reasoning indicates that he attached great importance to the technical side of speech, understanding the perfect technique of speech in close connection with the psychology of the listeners, considering the science of eloquence an important philosophical and psychological doctrine.

A great cultural and scientific event was the appearance of Aristotle's Rhetoric (384-322 BC), in which Aristotle significantly developed Plato's teaching on oratory. Aristotle criticized the Platonic theory of incorporeal forms (“ideas”), but could not completely overcome Platonic idealism.

Aristotle believes that rhetoric is an art corresponding to dialectics, because both of them relate to such subjects, acquaintance with which can be considered the property of all. This brings the two arts together. He defines rhetoric as the art of persuasion, which uses the possible and probable in cases where real certainty is insufficient. Rhetoric deals with the allocation of methods of persuasion, the theoretical understanding of these methods. As Aristotle notes, the effect of persuasive speech depends on three points: the moral character of the speaker, the quality of the speech itself, and the mood of the listeners. Already in the teachings of Aristotle, a triad is distinguished: the sender of speech-speech-receiver of speech, which finds its development in modern research.

Aristotle identifies three types of speeches that arose as a result of the development of the socio-political life of Greece: deliberative, judicial and epideictic. The purpose of deliberative speeches is to “incline or reject”, judicial speeches are to accuse or justify, epideictic speeches are to praise or blame.

Aristotle believes that the orator must bring the audience into a state that will allow him to easily convince the audience. He dwells in detail on the fact that the role of anger, neglect and mercy, enmity and hatred, fear and courage, shame, good deeds (services), compassion, indignation is important in speech. He also talks about the impact of speech on people of different age and social groups, as we see, the philosopher outlines the development of problems in the psychology of impact on various groups of listeners.

The time of Plato and Aristotle in the history of Greek culture ends the period of the classics. From the second half of the 4th c. BC. a new period of ancient culture begins, called Hellenism (Hellene - Greek). Hellenistic rhetoric analyzed a large number of stylistic phenomena. She studied word combinations, developed a doctrine of the qualities of speech, and continued to deal with the problems of tropes, figures, and styles. In some treatises, however, at first we find a passion for rhetoric, refinement of expressions, complex images, "colors of eloquence." This manner of speech came to be called the "Asiatic style" after the place of its origin and the prosperity of Asia Minor. The Asiatic style was studied by Hermogenes, Theodore Godarsky (teacher of Tiberius), an anonymous author called Longinus, who wrote the treatise On the Sublime. Representatives of this style preached pathos, uplift, exaltation.

However, not all theorists and practitioners were supporters of the Asian style; its opponents stood for classical patterns and strictness of speech. This style, in contrast to the Asian one, began to be called Attic, and its representatives - Atticists. They preached the refined imagery and intellectuality of speech, which evoked certain associations in the listeners, thereby influencing them. Atticists were supporters of the purity of speech, which meant its normativity, which boiled down to the correct choice of the word and morphological form. If the speaker followed these requirements, he could be considered an exemplary speaker, and his speeches were studied as models.

Representatives of the Attic trend were, for example, Apollodorus of Pergamon, mentor of the Roman emperor Octavian Augustus, who adhered to strict and precise rules of rhetoric; Cycelius, mentioned by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, is himself a supporter of the Attic direction, as well as Demetrius.

The greatest classic of ancient eloquence and the theoretician of oratory was the ancient Roman orator and politician Mark Tullius Cicero (106 - 43 BC). Three treatises on oratory reflect the rich experience of ancient rhetoric and his own practical experience as the greatest Roman orator. These treatises - "On the Orator", "Brutus, or on famous speakers", "The Orator" - are monuments to the ancient theory of literature, ancient humanism, which had a profound influence on the entire European culture (Cicero, 1972). In the theory of knowledge, Cicero tends to skepticism, believing that there is no criterion for distinguishing real ideas from unreal ones. He considers questions about the highest good, about virtues as the only source of happiness, strives for perfection. This striving is perfected by four virtues: wisdom, justice, courage, moderation. His philosophical views formed the basis of his views on oratory.

The speaker's duty is to find something to say; put the found in order; give it a verbal form; affirm all this in memory; pronounce. In addition, it is the speaker's task to win over the audience; state the essence of the matter; establish a controversial issue; reinforce your position refute the opinion of the enemy; in conclusion, to give shine to their positions and finally overthrow the position of the enemy.

2 Kinds and types of oratory

Genera and types of eloquence are distinguished depending on the sphere of communication, corresponding to one of the main functions of speech: communication, communication and influence. There are several areas of communication: scientific, business, outreach and social. The first, for example, can be attributed to a university lecture or scientific report, to the second - a diplomatic speech or speech at a congress, to the third - a military-patriotic speech or a rally speech, to the fourth - an anniversary (praise) speech or a drinking speech (toast). Of course, this division is not absolute. For example, a speech on a socio-economic topic can serve the scientific sphere (a scientific report), the business sphere (a propagandist's speech in a group of listeners). In form, they will also have common features.

In the modern practice of public communication, the following types of eloquence are distinguished: socio-political, academic, judicial, social, everyday, spiritual (church-theological). The type of eloquence is an area of oratory, characterized by the presence of a certain object of speech, a specific system for its analysis and evaluation. The result of further differentiation on the basis of more specific features are types or genres. This classification is situational and thematic in nature, since, firstly, the situation of the speech is taken into account, and secondly, the topic and purpose of the speech.

Speeches on issues of scientific and technological progress, reports at congresses, meetings, conferences, diplomatic, political, military-patriotic, rally, agitator, parliamentary speeches are socio-political eloquence.

Some genres of eloquence bear the features of an official business and scientific style, since they are based on official documents. In such speeches, the situation in the country, events in the world are analyzed, their main goal is to give listeners specific information. These public speeches contain facts of a political, economic nature, current events are assessed, recommendations are made, and a report is made on the work done. These speeches may be devoted to topical issues or may be of an invocative, explanatory, program-theoretical nature. The choice and use of language means depends primarily on the topic and target setting of the speech.

Political eloquence in Russia as a whole was poorly developed. Only military oratory reached a relatively high level. Peter I addressed the soldiers more than once.

Parliamentary eloquence is also rapidly developing today. It reflects the clash of different points of view, the debatable orientation of speech is manifested.

Academic eloquence is a kind of speech that helps to form a scientific worldview, distinguished by scientific presentation, deep argumentation, and logical culture. This type includes a university lecture, a scientific report, a scientific review, a scientific message, a popular science lecture. Of course, academic eloquence is close to the scientific style of speech, but at the same time, expressive, pictorial means are often used in it.

Judicial eloquence is a kind of speech designed to have a targeted and effective impact on the court, to contribute to the formation of the convictions of judges and citizens present in the courtroom. Usually, a prosecutor's or accusatory speech and a lawyer's or defense speech are distinguished.

Of course, court speeches analyze in detail the factual material, forensic examination data, all the arguments for and against, the testimony of witnesses, etc. Find out, prove, convince - these are three interrelated goals that determine the content of judicial eloquence.

An anniversary speech dedicated to a significant date or delivered in honor of an individual, a memorial speech dedicated to a deceased person, belong to social and everyday eloquence. One of the types of social and domestic eloquence was the court. It is characterized by a predilection for high style, lush, artificial metaphors and comparisons.

The form of expression in oratory may not be worked out with the degree of completeness and thoroughness, as is the case in written speech. But one cannot agree with the fact that oratorical speech is spontaneous. Speakers are preparing to speak, albeit to varying degrees. It depends on their experience, skill, qualifications and, finally, on the topic of the speech and the situation in which the speech is made. It is one thing to speak at a farm or a conference, and another thing at a rally: different forms of speech, different times of pronunciation, different audiences.

Public speaking is a prepared speech. And it is prepared, of course, according to book and written sources, which have a direct and immediate impact on the structure of speech.

Styles, distinguished in accordance with the main functions of the language, are associated with a particular area and conditions of human activity. They differ in the system of language means. It is these means that form a certain stylistic coloring that distinguishes this style from all others.

Official business style serves the scope of official business relations; its main function is informative (transfer of information). The scientific style serves the sphere of scientific knowledge; its main function is the communication of information, as well as the proof of its truth; it is characterized by the presence of terms, general scientific words, abstract vocabulary. Journalistic style serves the sphere of socio-economic, socio-cultural and other public relations; its main functions are communication and influence; in this style all language means are used; it is characterized by economy of language means, conciseness and popularity of presentation with informative richness.

Fiction and fiction style has an impact and aesthetic function; it most fully and vividly reflects the literary and, more broadly, the national language in all its diversity and richness, becoming a phenomenon of art, a means of creating artistic imagery.

Conversational style serves the sphere of everyday and professional (but only unprepared, informal) relations. Its main function is communication; manifested orally; It has two varieties: literary-colloquial and everyday-everyday speech.

3 Oratory structure

The integrity of oratorical speech lies in the unity of its theme - the main idea of the speech, the main problem posed in it - and semantic parts of different structure and length. Speech affects only if there are clear semantic connections that reflect the consistency in the presentation of thought. A confusing statement will not reach the goal, will not evoke in the listeners the reaction planned by the speaker.

When the speaker begins to speak, we, the listeners, sort of take shorthand and comment on his words. Informs what he will talk about ..., makes a reservation ..., goes to the main topic ..., makes a digression ..., repeats ..., discusses ..., refutes the opinion of the scientist ..., disagrees ..., emphasizes ..., repeats ..., adds ..., lists ..., answers to questions ..., draws conclusions. This comment strictly reflects the connection of the speaker with the audience, and, above all, the sequence of the material, the composition of the speech.

The composition of speech is a natural, motivated by the content and design of the location of all parts of the speech and their appropriate correlation, the system of organizing the material.

Five parts can be distinguished in the composition: the beginning of the speech, the speech, the main part (content), the conclusion, the ending of the speech. This is, so to speak, a classic scheme. It can also be folded if any of the parts is missing, except, of course, the main one (after all, there is no speech without content).

All parts of oratory are intertwined and interconnected. The combination of all parts of speech in order to achieve its integrity is called integration. The irreversibility of speech determines a lot in its construction. After all, it is difficult to keep the whole performance in RAM. This dictates its fundamentally different construction in comparison with written speech. The coherence of oratorical speech is provided by cohesion, retrospection and prospection.

Cohesion is a special type of connection that ensures the consistency and interdependence of individual parts of oratory, which allows you to penetrate deeper into its content, understand and remember individual parts. Its fragments are located at some (and even considerable) distance from each other, but to some extent connected with each other. This type of connection can be expressed by various repetitions, words denoting temporal, spatial and causal relationships. Examples: thus, so, firstly, secondly, thirdly, next question, now, quite obviously, let's look further. The connecting role is also played by such words and phrases: taking into account, on the one hand, on the other hand, meanwhile, despite this, as it turns out, in all likelihood, as it turned out later.

Retrospection is a form of speech expression that refers listeners to previous content information. The speaker can refer to information that is available in addition to his speech (thus, this speech is connected with the general information context), refer listeners to information that is contained in his previous speeches or in this speech, but stated earlier (this is how speech is connected with previous speeches).

Prospection is one of the elements of speech that relates meaningful information to what will be discussed in subsequent parts of the speech. Prospection enables the listener to more clearly imagine the connection and interdependence of the thoughts and ideas expressed in the speech. At the beginning, the speaker may promise the audience to give some information about this speech, as well as talk about his future speeches or about the speeches of other speakers. This will be the prospect.

The etiquette of oratory is a stable specific unit of communication adopted in oratory practice and necessary to establish contact with the audience, maintain communication in the chosen key, and convey other information. In addition to the main function - maintaining contact - these speech formulas perform the function of politeness, a regulatory function, due to which the nature of the relationship between the speaker and listeners and the perception of speech, as well as emotionally expressive, is established.

Most often, in speech etiquette, an appeal is used. Greetings to the audience are also common, i.e. expression of friendly feelings, friendly disposition, goodwill. The next group is the "farewell" and "thank you for your attention" formulas. There is also a group of speech cliches related to acquaintance. The speaker must be introduced or must introduce himself. High, neutral and emotional tonality is used in public speaking. through it, a favorable contact is established with the listeners.

4 Russian judicial orators of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries

The pre-revolutionary Russian advocacy had in its ranks many well-known judicial orators who were not only popular defenders who successfully acted in criminal trials, but also prominent legal scholars, writers, critics, and prominent public figures of a liberal direction.

Aleksandrov Petr Akimovich (1838-1893)

After graduating from the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University, since 1860, for 15 years, he held various positions in the Ministry of Justice. Strong knowledge, great abilities and talent ensured him a quick promotion through the ranks: assistant prosecutor of the St. Petersburg District Court, prosecutor of the Pskov District Court, assistant prosecutor of the Petersburg Court of Justice, and, finally, assistant chief prosecutor of the Cassation Department of the Governing Senate. In 1876, after an official conflict caused by the disapproval of his superiors in court in one of the cases, where he spoke in one of the cases, where he spoke in defense of freedom of the press, Aleksandrov retired and entered the bar the same year.

As a defender Aleksandrov drew attention to himself by speaking in the well-known political trial of the "193s". The case was heard in 1878 in the St. Petersburg District Court behind closed doors. The best forces of the St. Petersburg Bar Association took part as defenders.

Speaking in this process, Alexandrov, little known as a lawyer, first attracted the attention of the public with a thoughtful speech, a convincing polemic with the prosecutor.

Soon, following this case, the case was heard in the St. Petersburg District Court on the charge of Vera Zasulich of attempted murder of the St. Petersburg mayor Trepov. The speech delivered by Alexandrov in defense of Vera Zasulich brought him wide fame not only in Russia, but also abroad. His speech was completely reproduced in foreign languages. It should be directly noted that Alexandrov's speech had a great influence on the formation of the jury's decision in the case. This speech showed the great talent of a gifted, courageous judicial orator.

Respecting his profession, P.A. Alexandrov was always restrained in his speeches. His speeches are distinguished by the thoroughness of finishing the main provisions, the internal consistency of all their parts. He spoke them quietly, convincingly, with great inner strength. Being a brilliant orator, he never relied only on his oratorical skills, attaching great importance to pre-trial preparation for the case and the judicial investigation. He always carefully thought out his speeches.

Andreevsky Sergey Arkadyevich (1847-1918)

A very talented pre-revolutionary lawyer. After graduating from the law faculty of Kharkov University in 1869, he was a candidate for a judicial position at the prosecutor of the Kharkov Court of Justice, a judicial investigator in the city of Karachev, a fellow prosecutor of the Kazan District Court, where he proved himself to be a talented prosecutor. In 1873, with the direct participation of A.F. Koni, with whom he was close in joint work, S.A. Andreevsky was transferred to the assistant prosecutor of the St. Petersburg District Court.

In 1878, the tsarist justice was preparing for a hearing the case on the charge of Vera Zasulich of attempted murder of the St. Petersburg mayor Trepov. In the bowels of the Ministry of Justice, issues related to the consideration of this case were carefully processed. Much attention was paid to the composition of the court and the role of the prosecutor in the process. The Ministry of Justice was invited to act as a prosecutor in this case - S.A. Andreevsky and V.I. Zhukovsky. However, both of them refused to participate in the process.

Already the first process in which Andreevsky spoke (a speech in defense of the accused in the case of the murder of Zaitsev), created a reputation for him as a strong criminal lawyer.

Unlike Alexandrov, he did not care about a deep, comprehensive analysis of the case materials, and did not pay enough attention to the conclusions of the preliminary investigation. They focused on the personality of the defendant, the analysis of the environment in which he lived, and the conditions in which the defendant committed the crime. Andrievsky always gave a psychological analysis of the defendant's actions in a deep, lively, vivid and convincing manner. Without exaggeration, he can be called a master of psychological defense. The images he reveals always make an irresistible impression.

In cases where not only consistency and infallible logic were required, but also strict legal thinking, the study of legislative material, he, as a lawyer, was not up to par, and success betrayed him. As court speaker S.A. Andreevsky was original, independent.

Its main feature is the wide introduction of literary and artistic techniques in defensive speech. Considering advocacy as an art, he called the defense lawyer a "talking writer." In his work “On Criminal Defense”, noting the role of the psychological disclosure of the inner world of the defendant, Andreevsky wrote: “... fiction, with its great disclosure of the human soul, should have become the main teacher of criminal lawyers” S. A. Andreevsky, Drama of Life, Petrograd , 1916 . Noting the need to introduce the techniques of fiction into the criminal defense, he believed that "... the techniques of fiction should be included in the criminal defense completely, boldly and frankly, without any hesitation" Ibid. .

He not only expressed these views on the defense in the press, but practically put it into practice in court. Andrievsky always carefully finished his speeches. They contain many vivid figurative comparisons, well-aimed words, truthful reproductions of the events of the crime. True, his speeches are not devoid of a certain pathos, a desire for excessive eloquence.

His contemporaries said that Andreevsky's style was simple, clear, although somewhat pompous. His speeches are harmonious, smooth, carefully planned, full of bright, memorable images and colors, but his passion for psychological analysis often prevented him from giving a deep analysis of the evidence, which in some cases greatly weakened his speech.

S.A. Andreevsky was also engaged in literary activity. He wrote many poems and poems on lyrical themes. Since the beginning of the 80s, he has been published in Vestnik Evropy, in the book Literary Reading a number of his works and critical articles about Bartynsky, Nekrasov, Turgenev, Dostoevsky and Garshin have been published. In 1886, a collection of his poems was published.

Andreevsky's court speeches are published as a separate book.

Zhukovsky Vladimir Ivanovich (1836-1901)

Graduated from the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University with the rank of Candidate. In 1861 he entered the position of a judicial investigator in the Orenburg province. Subsequently, he worked in various judicial positions. In 1870 he was appointed assistant prosecutor of the St. Petersburg District Court. Successfully served as a prosecutor. With his speech on the sensational criminal case of the arson of the mill by the merchant Ovsyannikov, Zhukovsky established himself as a talented speaker.

In 1878, for the same reasons as S.A. Andreevsky Zhukovsky was forced to leave the prosecutor's office, and entered the bar. He has successfully acted in many group cases as a defender and civil plaintiff. He was widely known both in St. Petersburg and on the periphery. His speeches in court were always simple and intelligible, easily perceived by the audience. He especially established himself as a representative of a civil plaintiff. Zhukovsky delivered speeches quietly, naturally. Comic situations did not escape his observant gaze. He brilliantly owned irony, and skillfully used it in court.

Zhukovsky carefully finished his speeches, paying much attention to making them accessible and well received by the audience. In his speeches, he always found a place for a caustic joke, doing it like a great master. He skillfully argued with the prosecutor, but did not always pay attention to a deep and detailed analysis of evidence. Zhukovsky's contemporaries noted that the shorthand records of his speeches did not fully convey the character of individual details of speech, which acquire special significance in tone, facial expressions and gesture, which V. I. brilliantly owned. Zhukovsky.

Karabchevsky Nikolay Platonovich (1851-1925).

In 1869 he entered the natural faculty of St. Petersburg University. Fascinated by the lectures of famous pre-revolutionary lawyers - professors P. G. Redkin, N. S. Tagantsev, A. D. Gradovsky, he moved to the Faculty of Law, which he successfully graduated in 1874 with a candidate's degree, and entered the bar the same year. For five years he was an assistant to a barrister, and from 1879 he was a barrister at the St. Petersburg Court of Justice. He quickly gained popularity as one of the capable defenders in criminal cases. Repeatedly made defensive speeches in political processes.

As a young lawyer, he successfully acted in the process of "193", defending Breshkovskaya, Rogacheva and Andreeva. He proved himself well, speaking in the big trial “On Quartermaster Abuses During the Russian-Turkish War”, considered by the military district court. In this large, labor-intensive case, Karabchevsky showed himself to be a serious lawyer, able to give a complete, detailed analysis of numerous evidence in complex, intricate cases.

Among his most famous speeches in criminal cases is a speech in defense of Olga Palem, who is accused of premeditated murder of student Dovnar, in defense of the Skitsky brothers, in defense of the Multan Votyaks, in the resolution of whose fate V. G. Korolenko took part. His speech on the case of the wreck of the steamer "Vladimir" was very famous. Widely known are his speeches on political matters, in defense of Gershuni, Sazonov, and Beilis.

In addition to advocacy, Karabchevsky was engaged in literary work. He wrote a number of literary works - prose and poetry, published in the collection "The Lifted Veil". Memoirs and articles on legal issues were published in his book Near Justice. He is also known as the editor of the magazine "Lawyer" that was published at one time. Died abroad in exile.

Plevako Fedor Nikiforovich (1842-1908)

Graduated from Moscow University. He was a barrister at the Moscow Court of Justice. Worked as a lawyer for over 40 years. Gifted legal speaker. Gradually, from process to process, he gained wide recognition with his speeches. He carefully prepared for the case, deeply knew all its circumstances, was able to analyze the evidence and show the court the inner meaning of certain phenomena. His speeches were distinguished by great psychological depth, worldly wisdom, simplicity and intelligibility. He illuminated complex human relationships, insoluble everyday combinations in a heartfelt manner, in an accessible form for listeners.

Speaking in many major trials, he proved himself to be a sharp and resourceful polemicist.

Spasovich Vladimir Danilovich (1829-1906)

In 1849 he graduated from the law faculty of St. Petersburg University. After graduation, he worked as an official in the chamber of the criminal court. At the age of 22, he defended his master's thesis in the department of international law. Engaged in pedagogical work. Translated Polish writers into Russian. He was close to the scientist-historian K. D. Kavelin, on whose recommendation he took the chair of criminal law at St. Petersburg University. A gifted criminologist, known for his theoretical work in the field of criminal procedure, Spasovich was the author of one of the best textbooks on Russian criminal law of his time. Spasovich was very popular with students. His lectures attracted a large number of students. Spasovich had an enemy of routine views in the science of criminal law and process, which caused dissatisfaction with the university authorities.

In 1861, together with a group of advanced scientists, he left St. Petersburg University in connection with student unrest. At the bar since 1866. Served as defense counsel in a number of political cases.

Khartulari Konstantin Fedorovich (1841-1897)

After graduating from the law faculty of St. Petersburg University, he served at the beginning in the Ministry of Justice, and since 1868 - as a barrister at the St. Petersburg Court of Justice. Known as an exceptionally balanced lawyer, far from any attempt to saturate his speech with excessive eloquence.

His speeches in court are distinguished by a thorough and in-depth analysis of evidence, the ability to find the main points in the case and give them the right coverage. A characteristic feature of his speeches is the careful finishing, the proportionality of their parts, the deeply thought-out presentation of the material. His best speech is his speech on the sensational criminal case on charges of the murder of Marguerite Zhyuzhan. True, this speech is devoid of bright colors, an acute situation and deep psychological images, which he did not know how to draw. The speech in the case of Marguerite Zhyuzhan is an example of business-like in-depth analysis of evidence, strict consistency and logic, which makes it intelligible and convincing. The lawyer did not leave a single piece of evidence without a detailed analysis and careful comparison with other evidence. This speech skillfully grouped and consistently presented all the evidence confirming the innocence of Marguerite Zhyuzhan. This largely secured a verdict of not guilty.

A speech in defense of Maria Levenshtein and Raznotovsky, accused of attempted murder, was delivered in a completely different way. Here Khartulari showed himself to be a good psychologist, a great observer, and a vivid description of everyday life.

Holev Nikolai Iosifovich (1858-1899)

In 1881 he graduated from the law faculty of St. Petersburg University and immediately became an assistant barrister at the St. Petersburg Court of Justice, where he began his advocacy. He did not gain fame immediately. Only five or six years later he happened to speak in a major trial, where he showed his oratorical abilities to the full extent. His speeches, like the speeches of K. F. Khartulari, are characterized by efficiency and confidence in the word. Holev's best speech is a speech in defense of Maksimenko and a speech on the case of the wreck of the steamer "Vladimir".

His speeches, however, are rather dry, they lack brilliance, sharp humor, combative polemical enthusiasm, he is not capable of deep psychological digressions. Holev's success was due to his ability to conscientiously collect evidence and correctly present it to the court. For example, his speech in defense of Maksimenko is hard, painstaking work. Every piece of evidence he handles is carefully checked. Analyzing the evidence, he is strictly consistent. The logic of his speech is hard to dispute. His controversy with medical expertise makes a great impression. On special issues of medicine that arose in court, he is erudite and freely argues with authoritative experts. Holev's speeches are an example of an extremely conscientious attitude to the duties of a lawyer. Kholev was not in the first line of pre-revolutionary Russian orators, but he was one of the well-known, spoke in major trials, where he achieved success with great work and diligence.

Conclusion

Summing up the results of this work, I would like to dwell on the following key aspects of Russian oratory:

Firstly, Russian oratory was most clearly expressed in legal proceedings, on the example of which its specific features were shown in this work.

Secondly, there were enough names in Russian oratory to compare with their counterparts at the dawn of the ancient period.

Bibliography

2 Zarifyan I.A. Theory of literature. M., 1990

3 Kokhtev N.N. Fundamentals of oratory. M., 1992

4 Vinogradov S.I., Graudina L.K., Danilenko V.P. Culture of Russian speech.

5 Nozhin E.A. Mastery of oral presentation-M: Knowledge, 1989.

6 Mikhailichenko N.A. Rhetoric-M: New School, 1994

7 Vvedenskaya M.A., Pavlova L.G. Culture and art of speech. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix. 1995

8 Golovin B.N. Fundamentals of speech culture. - M.: 1990.

Notable foreign speakers

In foreign countries, there are many famous great orators who have an excellent ability to build their speech during speeches so that people do not doubt their convictions. The most prominent personalities include two prominent political figures:

Adolf Gitler

Despite all his diabolical essence, this man was the strongest speaker, who, speaking, always kept the masses in suspense and full attention. In speeches, he used sharp hand gestures, spoke emotionally and even rudely. In his speeches, there was such a feature as the use of long pauses in order to emphasize something important and basic.

He prepared the speech in advance, writing down everything on paper. Hitler was not known for restraint, so he often gave vent to emotions, splashing them out on the audience. People were attracted by the fact that he spoke either slowly or quickly. Therefore, this technique was used by him in every speech. Despite the fact that his ideas were often evil and wrong, the people supported him. In this regard, Hitler is called the orator of evil. Despite all the black side of this man, he always makes it to the list - "The Greatest Speakers of the 20th-21st century."

Winston Churchill

This politician always prepared in advance for each of his speeches, even thinking over facial expressions and gestures. He worked out the text so that it was perfect. This man was distinguished by charisma, often used humor in his speech.

He was so inspired by his ideas that he could infect the whole people with them. When compiling the text, he actively used such artistic techniques as metaphor and comparison. In the process of communication, Churchill tried to be calm and behave naturally. From birth, he had such a speech defect as a lisp, however, over time, he managed to get rid of it.

Russian speakers

In Russia, too, there have always been well-known outstanding speakers, which include such famous personalities as Koni, Trotsky, Zhirinovsky, Putin and others.

Anatoly Fedorovich Koni

Anatoly Fedorovich was engaged in legal and social activities in the late 19th - early 20th century. He urged everyone to observe morality in the trial. Koni's speech was always lively and dynamic, never monotonous.

He believed that speakers in court hearings should be fair, stand up for the truth. In his speeches, Koni was not distinguished by dryness, but gave vent to emotions. But he knew how to combine facts with feelings so that the text had a positive effect on the minds of the judges. This orator's defensive speech left no doubt that the verdict would be in his favour.

Anatoly Fedorovich Koni possessed high individual and socially significant moral qualities, followed the rules of honor, always delivered a speech clearly, without using terminology unknown to others, and was fluent in eloquence.

Lev Davidovich Trotsky

Many people said that Lev Davidovich is the best speaker of the 20th century. He had a powerful timbre of voice, the words were pronounced clearly and understandably. He was an intelligent and active man, who was feared by many opponents. The great orator himself did not feel fear of any person, therefore he spoke everything to his face, concealing nothing.

Trotsky's speech was always built consistently, logically and concisely. He was good at convincing people, so he had a large number of associates. His gift for eloquence was clearly visible during political speeches.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Great orators of the 20th century - this list, of course, should include Lenin. Vladimir Ilyich delivered such speeches that were accessible and understandable to every representative of the people. He perfectly felt what kind of mood people had, so he could lure them with almost any ideas. Most of all, he used dialogue, communicating with the people, answering their questions.

His speech was concise and specific. He also used guiding hand gestures, which only increased his influence on people. Lenin had a charisma that attracted all listening people. His phrases became winged, they were used by other people and printed in publications.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

Vladimir Vladimirovich is perhaps the most famous Russian political orator of our time. He speaks easily, using a little humor in his speech. His speeches are always well thought out, do not contain anything superfluous. Hand gestures are smooth, which does not distract people's attention at all, once again emphasizes confidence.

This politician is distinguished by restraint and calmness while communicating with the people or colleagues, not allowing himself to say a harsh or rude word. He always answers people's questions clearly, as he is well versed in many areas of life.

Vladimir Volfovich Zhirinovsky

Vladimir Volfovich is distinguished by the fact that his speech is always accompanied by emotional coloring, it is unpredictable and even sometimes has some aggressiveness. His performances are more like shows. He often puts pressure on the interlocutor in his own words, uses energetic gestures.

Zhirinovsky has a strong charisma. But he is not just a great orator, but a very smart and fair politician. Vladimir Volfovich can easily develop a dispute, as he understands any topic. He does not differ in restraint, he always says what he thinks, expresses his emotions, he can often afford to say too much to draw attention to his person.

All the best orators of the world mentioned above are far from the whole list of outstanding masters of eloquence (let's not forget about such great speakers as: James Humes, Abraham Lincoln, Steve Jobs, etc.). It is difficult to answer the question of who is the best speaker of all time. Someone had the gift of eloquence from birth, and someone has come a long way, coping with their shortcomings in speech and acquiring the skills of oratory, becoming great. But one thing can be said for everyone, that thanks to their excellent eloquence, they were able to become famous figures in public and political life.

Theory and practice of Russian eloquence inXIXcentury

Types of oratory and their characteristics (political, lecturing, everyday, judicial eloquence).
Rhetoric guides.
Crisis of rhetoric in the second half of the 19th century.

Adamov E.A. Outstanding Russian speakers: From the history of oratory. - M.: Knowledge, 1961. - Issue. 2. - P.5-60.
Vinogradov V.V. Poetics and rhetoric //Vinogradov V.V. Selected works. On the language of artistic prose. – M.: Nauka, 1980. – P. 98–175.
Herzen A.I. Past and thoughts. - M .: State publishing house of art. Literature, 1963. - P. 119-127, 360-361, 434-444.
Graudina L.K., Miskevich G.I. Theory and practice of Russian eloquence. – M.: Nauka, 1989. – P. 122–85.
Efimov A.I. On the culture of public speech // Russian speech. - 1989. - No. 5. – P.103–107.
Zarifyan I.A. Theory of Literature: Bibliography and Commentary. - M.: Knowledge, 1990. - 64 p.
Masters of eloquence. - M.: Knowledge, 1991. - 144 p.
Mikhailova N. The fate of N.F. Koshansky's "Rhetoricist" // Bibliophile's Almanac. - M .: Book, 1984. - Issue 16. – P.211–224.
Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. Theory of rhetoric. – M.: Dobrosvet, 1997. – S. 79–82.
Smolyarchuk V.I. Giants and sorcerers of the word: Russian judicial orators of the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. - M.: Legal literature, 1984. - 272 p.
Smolyarchuk V.I. F.N. Plevako - court speaker. - M.: Knowledge, 1989. - 64 p.
Judicial eloquence of Russian lawyers of the past. - M.: Themis, 1992. - 286 p.
Chekhov A.P. Good news // Full. coll. op. and letters: In 30 volumes. - M .: Nauka, 1979. - V.16. Works. – P.266–267.
Chikhachev V.P. Lecture eloquence of Russian scientists of the 19th century. - M.: Knowledge, 1987. - 96 p.
Etudes about lecturers. - M.: Knowledge, 1974. - 224 p.

Conditions for the development of oratory in Russia in the 19th century. were less favorable than in the West. There was no parliament, severe censorship was in effect, and until 1864 there was no public court. Nevertheless, the culture of oratorical speech developed. The improvement of both practical and theoretical spiritual eloquence continued. All rhetoric included special sections, which outlined the principles of construction, verbal design of the sermon. New varieties of oratory were formed: political, judicial eloquence. Passion for drinking, anniversary, wedding speeches, toasts contributed to the improvement of everyday eloquence.

Political eloquence developed especially intensively during periods of exacerbation of class contradictions. The beginning of the 19th century gave us wonderful examples of political eloquence in the works of the Decembrists, who were attracted not by the norms of rational oratory, but by emotional ways of influencing a person with a word. Therefore, the eloquence of preachers in terms of purpose, purpose, methods of influence was closer to the Decembrists than academic oratory.

Political eloquence also developed in the circles of the 1930s and 1940s (the circles of Petrashevsky, Herzen and Ogarev, Stankevich, Belinsky and other public figures). The revolutionary democrats were forced to meet and speak in secret. They were deprived of the opportunity to speak openly with an oratory and therefore resorted to the means of journalism to express their civic position. There was also the officially approved eloquence of conservatives and liberals, who had no restrictions in their speeches and were distinguished by phrases. M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin called this eloquence “smeary-shamefully empty”.

An outstanding orator of his era was V. G. Belinsky, who combined great emotionality with brilliant logical analysis. A.I. Herzen in the work “The Past and Thoughts” described V.G. Belinsky as a speaker: “But in this shy man, in this frail body, a powerful, gladiatorial nature lived; yes, it was a strong fighter! He did not know how to preach, teach, he needed an argument. Without objections, without irritation, he did not speak well, but when he felt wounded, when his dear convictions were touched, when the muscles of his cheeks began to tremble and his voice broke off, then one had to see him; he rushed at the enemy with a leopard, he tore him to pieces, made him ridiculous, made him miserable, and along the way, with extraordinary strength, with extraordinary poetry, he developed his thought. Chained by censorship, the revolutionary democrat transferred the most powerful methods of eloquence into his articles. Many of his works are built in the style of oral speech (for example, the famous "Letter to Gogol"). VG Belinsky was also a theorist of oratory. In a review of Professor Koshansky's "General Rhetoric" and other works, he expressed a number of extremely valuable considerations on questions of oratory.

In the second half of the 19th century, political eloquence was represented by the speeches of the Narodnaya Volya (Zhelyabov, Figner, and others), the raznochintsy intelligentsia (A.P. Shchapov, and others), and the first working speakers (Khalturin, Alekseev, and others). At the end of the 19th century, the type of Bolshevik orator was formed.

In the period under review, everyday eloquence is actively developing. One can get an idea of the nature of speeches made, the degree of prevalence of this type of oratory by the types of speakers and their speeches reproduced in works of art (see, for example, the stories of A.P. Chekhov "The Wedding", "The Orator", "A Boring Story" , "On the dangers of tobacco").

In the 60s of the 19th century, judicial reform was carried out in Russia. Jury trial was introduced. The trial began to take place publicly, orally. Therefore, another type of rhetorical art begins to develop - judicial eloquence. Before the jury, many lawyer speeches were delivered - examples of judicial oratory. The lively, bright word of such talented judicial figures as A.F. Koni, V.D. Spasovich, F.N. Plevako, P.S. Porokhovshchikov and others aroused great public interest. They deeply knew the subject of speech, had a perfect command of the literary language, were resourceful in discussion, perfectly argued, skillfully sorted out the facts and based their conclusions on them. Their speeches abounded with skillfully used images, comparisons, generalizations and were built on a deep psychological analysis and analysis of human relations, on the characteristics of the persons involved in the case. Many of the lawyers were not only practical speakers, but also theorists of judicial and lecturer eloquence: B.B. Glinsky “Russian judicial eloquence”, A.G. Timofeev “Judicial eloquence in Russia”, P.S. ) “The Art of Speech in Court”, A.F. Koni “Techniques and Tasks of the Prosecution”, “Advice to Lecturers”, etc. These works formulate the theoretical and practical principles not only of this type of eloquence, but also of oratory in general: 1) clarity and clarity of presentation, unambiguous perception; 2) knowledge of the subject of speech; 3) compliance with the laws of logic, which are the basis of speech; 4) knowledge of the features of the use of language units; 5) observance of the "purity and accuracy" of the style, sense of proportion, compliance with the general content orientation of the text and the choice of language means used; 7) the ability to speak simply about sublime and complex things; 8) conviction in what you say, the absence of lies; 9) the need for good preparation for the performance; 10) the ability to mentally assemble, concentrate, with the help of special techniques to keep the attention of listeners in the process of speech, etc.

In the 19th century, academic eloquence successfully developed, which is associated with the rise of scientific thought, the expansion of university education, the establishment of materialism in science, and the participation of students in the social and political life of the country. If in the first third of the XIX century. talented lecturers were an exception among the total number of professors (for example, A.I. Herzen wrote about this in the novel “The Past and Thoughts”), then in the 40-60s a whole galaxy of brilliant professors-orators appeared, whose lectures are the most interesting examples of Russian academic eloquence. These are historians T.N. Granovsky and V.O. Klyuchevsky, physiologist I.M. Sechenov, chemist D.I. Mendeleev, botanist K.A. Timiryazev, physicist A.G. .P. Pavsky, F.I. Buslaev and others. Academic eloquence developed primarily in universities and other educational institutions in the form of lectures. Many well-known scientists of that time actively participated in scientific readings and public discussions. Their performances were held in crowded halls.

On July 6, 1811, the "Society of Lovers of Russian Literature" was established at Moscow University. Prominent Russian scientists, writers, and public figures spoke at its periodic meetings. 27 volumes of works were published, in which studies on the Russian language, its history, materials for various dictionaries, speeches of professors at the solemn events of Moscow University were published. Pronounced in Russian, published for reading, they demonstrated the development of national academic eloquence.

Russian lecturer's eloquence is characterized by emotionality, civic orientation, deep scientific analysis, a progressive social position, the art of a lively elegant word, which was bright, figurative, logical, at the same time simple, clear and natural. Lecturers aroused the desire for knowledge, its active application, they knew how to touch the hearts of the audience, riveted their attention to the subject of the lecture, and did not give them the opportunity to get bored and tired. The appearance of favorite professors in the department was often met with applause. According to the memoirs of contemporaries, the lectures of Russian professors gave not only great intellectual, but also high artistic pleasure.

The period of the first half of the XIX century. considered fruitful in the history of the development of the theory of eloquence. It was at this time that a large number of works on rhetoric appeared, which is associated with the process of establishing the boundaries of the Russian literary language, the formation of a unified language system, the approval of literary norms, the formation of courses in the theory of literature, with discussions about language, about the "old" and "new" style, with the revision of the structure of school philological education. Rhetoric courses by A.I. Galich, I.I. Davydov, N.F. Koshansky, A.F. Merzlyakov, N.I. Grech, K.P. Zelenetsky and others were popular in Russia.

Russian rhetoricians of this period are works of theoretical and practical orientation. They determined the principles of organization of prose texts, types of prose. The laws of eloquence applied to letters, conversations, business papers, educational essays, history, oratorical speeches (spiritual, political, judicial, commendable, academic), etc. Rhetoric and poetics were considered as independent areas of the science of literature. The main purpose of rhetoric is to teach how to influence the reader or listener. The manuals presented the classical theory of rhetoric in a three-part scheme (invention, arrangement, expression). Common places, the doctrine of passions, periods, paths and figures were considered. The authors paid much attention to the doctrine of the syllable, its advantages and disadvantages, as well as euphony. The structure of rhetorical writings underwent certain changes: rhetoric was divided into general, which generalized the laws of invention, arrangement and expression of thoughts, creation of literary and written texts, and private, which offered practical recommendations on all genres of eloquence.

The textbooks of that time largely used the traditions of the oratory of Ancient Russia, the heroic themes from Russian history, took into account the peculiarities of Russian language means, rhetoric was considered as a science of high culture of speech, mastery of the word in different conditions and was considered the main science of literature (“ability or art expression of thought in a word using the rules of the arts of speech (primarily rhetoric as "the art of composing"); a set of works of literature in which the rules of the arts of speech are applied"). The focus was on both oral and written communication. The authors of many manuals tried to logically build a whole system of speech arts in relation to the Russian language: logic gave the rules for organizing and developing the conceptual content of speech, grammar and rhetoric - the rules for expressing thoughts in a word. The center of such a system was the understanding of language as a meaning-expressive means, the word as a sign for expressing concepts, judgments, feelings. The works that present the theory of eloquence are represented by such genres as 1) theoretical essays on Russian, or “elegant” (in the terminology of that time), literature: “The rules of literature that guide from the first beginnings to the highest perfections of eloquence” Ya.V. Tolmacheva, “Educational book of Russian literature” by N.I. Grech, “The theory of eloquence for all kinds of prose writings” by A.I. Galich, “Readings about literature” by I.I. Davydov, “General rhetoric” and “Private rhetoric” N .F.Koshansky, "Training course of Russian literature" by V.T.Plaksin, "Course of Russian literature for students", "Research on rhetoric" by K.P.Zelenetsky; 2) short rhetoric intended for students in various educational institutions: “Short rhetoric, or Rules relating to all kinds of prose writings” by A.F. Merzlyakov (the author rejects the Lomonosov doctrine of invention and the doctrine of passions and develops the rules of general style) .

In literature courses, rhetoric was understood as the rules for the artful combination of thoughts and words. Therefore, the part devoted to the invention has changed somewhat. It included chapters related to the doctrine of style. Many inventions have been omitted from the presentation. Two series of works of literature were strictly distinguished: prose and poetry. Poetry was understood as all artistic literature (not only poetry), its purpose is to give pleasure. Prose and rhetoric formed a single whole, the purpose of which was to teach.

Military eloquence also occupied an important place in the life of Russian society, as evidenced by the appearance of works on the theory of this type of oratory, which are the result of understanding the experience of the Patriotic War of 1812 (Y. Tolmachev “Military eloquence”, E. Fuchs “On military eloquence”) .

To give an idea of the content of the rhetoric of the 19th century, we will briefly characterize the textbooks "General Rhetoric" and "Private Rhetoric" by F. Koshansky, which had a strong influence on the development of rhetorical theory in the 30-50s of the 19th century. These books were very popular and lasted as educational books until the middle of the century.

The first book dealt with the general laws of prose, the second analyzed certain types of prose writings. In the introduction to General Rhetoric, a definition of rhetorical teaching is given: “Rhetoric (in general) is the science of inventing, disposing and expressing thoughts and (in particular) a guide to the knowledge of all prose writings. In the first case it is called general, in the second it is called particular. The first book presents the beginnings of eloquence - the choice of the subject itself, the train of thought in description and reasoning; 24 sources are named and characterized, with the help of which, according to the author, it is possible to describe the subject of speech from different angles; a significant place was given to the syllable (category of style) and decoration of speech. The author took a new approach to the role of stylistic figures in the text: the figures of the word are not considered, the typology of figures is built depending on the method of semantic influence (“figures that convince the mind”, “figures that act on the imagination”, “figures that captivate the heart”).

"Private Rhetoric" was a guide to the theory of prose genres. It explained the purpose, content, composition, merits of letters, obituaries, anecdotes, annals, biographies, stories, novels, scholarly writings and other genres. Special attention was paid to the analysis of oratory proper in antiquity and in the 19th century. It was said about speeches political, spiritual, academic, solemn, etc.

Both rhetoric included numerous examples, mostly taken from contemporary Russian literature, a lot of additional information on logic and aesthetics.

Thus, the first half of the XIX century. - This is the heyday of the theory of eloquence. The second half is the time of the gradual decline of rhetoric as a science of prose. The reasons for the crisis of rhetoric and its gradual exclusion from the teaching program in the middle of the 19th century. were analyzed by academician V.V. Vinogradov in the book “On the language of artistic prose”, and also considered in the article by Yu.V. Lexicology and lexicography, Vinogradov Readings IX-X, Moscow, 1981).

The major philologists A.A. Potebnya, A.N. Veselovsky, critics headed by V.G. Belinsky declared fiction (prose and poetry) to be the main type of literature. Everything that was connected with business, scientific, oratory disappeared from the school education programs. When teaching language and literature, only literary texts were used. The normative system of the arts of speech begins to collapse under the influence of the emerging concepts of fundamental linguistics and literary criticism. Interest in rhetoric began to fade. To many, this science seemed outdated and unnecessary, the genre of solemn, laudatory eloquence was skeptically assessed. In teaching rhetoric, live communication with the audience was reduced to a collection of rules and recipes divorced from practice, intended for memorization. The section on the invention has exhausted itself. Living thinking was replaced by formal verbal dissemination based on the sources of invention, common places that were suitable for all objects and cases and did not require penetration into the essence of the phenomenon, in particular. Vivid civic speeches by A.I.

Sharp criticism of rhetoric began to be heard. In 1836 the Library for Reading published a short critical article. Its author, calling rhetoric a non-existent science, ironically remarked: “Meanwhile, let Rhetorics be published. And with an erroneous system, you can still learn something. We recently read in a Russian book the following genealogy of A.S. Pushkin as a poet: Merzlyakov created Mr. Koshansky, and Mr. Koshansky created A.S. Pushkin. Consequently, A.S. Pushkin studied the rhetoric of Mr. Koshansky, and, consequently, learning from the rhetoric of Mr. Koshansky, one can learn to write beautifully. In 1844, a sharply critical review of V. G. Belinsky on the "Rhetoric" by N. F. Koshansky was published. The revolutionary democrat condemned the formalism of science, the pomposity of the style of rhetorical compositions, the work of students according to schemes without sufficient awareness of the topic: “All rhetoric is a absurd, empty, harmful, pedantic science, a remnant of barbaric scholastic times, all rhetoricians, as far as we know them in Russian, are absurd and vulgar; but the rhetoric of Mr. Koshansky outdid them all... How many innocent people she ruined with her.” A student of N.F. Koshansky, a lyceum student Ya.K. Grot recalled the magazine attacks on his teacher: “In Russian journalism, since the 1830s, mockery of his rhetoric has long been one of the common places of our criticism, which it always has in reserve, because nothing is more convenient than, on occasion, to show off ready and, apparently, infallible sentence. Meanwhile, people talked about this textbook for the most part only by hearsay, without knowing it and not even having an accurate idea of its content.<...>There is no doubt that, from the present point of view, in each of these books one can find much that is out of date and, perhaps, strange; but at the same time, one should not lose sight of, firstly, that both of them have one rare dignity for that time - a historical basis, they acquaint in the correct system with the history of ancient and new literatures, especially Russian, and, secondly, that they contain only a thread or canvas along which the further development and revival of the subject is left to the knowledge and art of a good teacher.(See: From the lyceum memoirs of Ya.K. Grot // Grotto Ya.K. Pushkin Lyceum. - St. Petersburg; 1998). An attempt to defend the "Rhetoric" of N.F. Koshansky was made by the poet and critic, academician, professor of Russian literature and rector of St. Petersburg University P.A. Pletnev. But, despite his defense, in 1849 both books came out with the last edition, and since 1851 they were replaced by other textbooks.

The crisis of rhetoric manifested itself in the fact that in the second half of the XIX century. There are few works in this discipline. However, in the last third of the XIX century. courses in rhetoric were given in the gymnasiums.

Tasks

1. In a review of the “General Rhetoric” by N.F. Koshansky, V.G. Belinsky wrote:

“The speaker greatly stirred the crowd with a powerful feeling expressed in the figure of questioning, and now the powerful feeling was thrown aside, and the figure of questioning was taken into account ... From observations and analysis of the speeches of great speakers, they compiled a collection of some arbitrary rules and called this collection of rhetoric. ... And where the speaker takes inspiration, a storm of passions, thunder and lightning words, there the rhetor wants to take paths and figures, commonplaces, chiseled phrases, rounded periods. What does VG Belinsky oppose? What types of speakers is the critic talking about?

2. Using fragments of reviews by V. G. Belinsky, make up the theses that reveal the views of the author as a theorist of oratory.

From the review “A way to spread sericulture. Y.Yuditsky":

« ... Leaving aside the theory of eloquence and poetry, and in general any theory, in lower educational institutions, after a thorough and rigorous study of grammar, we even consider it useful to entertain students practice language, so that they can clearly, intelligibly, roundly, pleasantly and decently write a note about sending a book, an invitation to an evening, a letter to a father, mother or friend about their needs, feelings, pastime and other subjects that do not go beyond the scope of their concepts and their lives. Here the main thing is to accustom them to a natural, simple, but lively and correct style, to the ease of presentation of thoughts and - most importantly - to conformity with the subject of the essay. In our country, on the contrary, they either taught children to talk about lofty or abstract subjects, alien to the sphere of their conception, and thereby incited them in advance to pomposity, grandiloquence, pretentiousness, to bookish, pedantic language, or taught them to write on vulgar topics, consisting of general places that contain no thought. And all this in the dark pedantic forms of hria (ordinal, transformed, autonian) or rhetorical reasoning within the well-known scholastic framework. And what are the fruits of this teaching? - Soulless reasoning, blurring with cold and fresh water of commonplaces or grandiloquent rhetorical embellishments. And therefore, a student educated according to the old system will write you an argument about what he knows, but meanwhile he does not know how to write notes, a simple letter. It is like a person who knows how to walk in the manner of ancient heroes, with all the theatrical grandeur, but who can neither enter, nor stand, nor sit down in a decent society. Oh gentlemen, this terrible science is rhetoric! Blessed is he who could shake off her pedantic rot and dust, and woe to him who forever and involuntarily remained to flaunt in her tinsel purple, in her paper crown on her head and with her wooden dagger! Meanwhile, children should be taught to write; but only the basis of this doctrine should be based on grammar, in its general meaning, and a close acquaintance with the spirit of the native language, an acquaintance acquired by theory and even more by practice. What is simpler is both truer and more difficult, and therefore it is much easier to learn to write in the style of Lomonosov or Kheraskov (we are talking about prose) than in the style of Karamzin, Batyushkov, Zhukovsky, just as it is much easier to write in the style of Marlinsky than in the style of Pushkin or Gogol. Of course, talent is given by nature; but we are talking about what can, according to the strength of each, be acquired by teaching; a good method of teaching develops talent, and a bad one gives it a false direction. And where did our rhetoric go - we only talk about grammar? Should rhetoric be excluded from the subjects of study? “Not at all, but it must lead her into her own limits. In order to write well, you need to stock up on content, and no rhetoric will give this - and the one that is still taught among us, gives only a destructive ability to vary an abstract thought in common places and stretch the emptiness into infinity, in other words - blow soap bubbles. The content is given by the integrity of education and development; the ability to master the content, that is, to develop it correctly, is given by logic; rhetoric is not to blame for either. Our rhetoric usually begins with an exposition of the theory of periods; here is the first misappropriation of the rhetoric of someone else: the theory of periods refers to the syntax, which is already understood by many. The theory of periods is followed by the theory decorated tongue- tropes, metaphors, figures: this really applies to the content of rhetoric. But even here rhetoric should not teach at all red write, or compose, on given topics, tropes and figures, but only must show the meaning of both, as an expression of a certain state or a certain mood of the spirit of the writer. The theory of adorned language is usually followed by the doctrine of hria and reasoning - this is out, like pedantic rot and dust, like the death of everything natural, simple ...

... Stylistics is the real content of rhetoric; but this is not a theory, but a systematic, if possible, collection of empirical rules, supported by examples ... "

From the review “General Rhetoric of N. Koshansky”:

“... All textbooks of Russian literature are either incomplete and insufficient, or based on false principles and short-sighted views; there you will sometimes find the doctrine of hriyas, and ways of inventing thoughts, and imaginary rules for writing speeches and letters, history and travel - all the beliefs of La Harpe, Genzius and comrades. Within the limits of science, which we, according to old habit, have not yet fallen behind in calling "rhetoric" or "rhetoric", in its present form, includes materials belonging to the fields of many other sciences, and yet we do not find in it what that is exactly what should be said in the theory of literature. The building of this science is established in our country on such a crumbling foundation, the logical and aesthetic principles are mixed in it with the dogmas of the language in such chaos that every more or less sharp-witted and educated teacher sees all the futility of the current theory in its application to practice. The main mistake of our theoreticians is that in their systems, while setting out the laws of verbal works, they were not able to adequately separate their inner side from the outer side, ideas from form, and, thus, their rhetoric includes both logic and the theory of the elegant, not separated from each other by no tangible, precise limits. Indeed, everything that was previously said in our theories of literature about the invention and arrangement of thoughts, about the composition and arrangement of didactic compositions - all this is much clearer and more detailed in logic, especially in its second part, called "systematics" or "methodology". The origin of the syllable, or, to be more precise, of the elegant language, and the whole doctrine of the aesthetic elements of every literary work, is considered in the theory of the elegant. Logic and aesthetics must return their property, which the theory of literature has unjustly and to its own detriment stolen from them; only the doctrine of the syllable, which is the subject of higher, so to speak, applied grammar, will remain for this latter; thus the edifice of rhetoric will collapse of itself. The tutor of literature will still have a lot to do if he even transfers the teaching of logic and the theory of elegance to other hands. In addition to the grammatical study of the Russian language, he must look at the language from its historical and dogmatic side, set out the history of its development, its advantages and disadvantages relative to other languages, show to what extent in superficial painting, and all his provisions, he is able to support the coming era. to the expression of abstract ideas and humers extracted from the works of our writers. Write the logic and the theory of gracefulness in their application to the Russian language and make up a good theory of the syllable - that's what both students and students will be quite grateful for ... "

3. Read an excerpt from the famous “Letter to Gogol” by V. G. Belinsky (see text below) and find rhetorical devices that confirm the idea that the revolutionary democrat actively used the means of oral oratory in his works.

“Russia sees its salvation not in mysticism, not in asceticism , not in pietism ,but in the successes of civilization, enlightenment, humanity. She needs not sermons (enough she heard them!), not prayers (enough she repeated them!), but the awakening in the people of a sense of human dignity, so many centuries lost in mud and manure, rights and laws that are consistent not with the teachings of the church, but with common sense and justice, and strict, if possible, their implementation. Instead, it presents a terrible spectacle of a country where people traffic in people, without even having the justification that the American planters slyly use when they claim that the Negro is not a person; countries where people call themselves not names, but nicknames: Roly, Steshkami, Vaska, Palashkami; countries where, finally, there are not only no guarantees for the person, honor and property, but there is not even a police order, but there are only huge corporations of various official thieves and robbers. The most vital, contemporary national questions in Russia are now: the abolition of serfdom, the abolition of corporal punishment, the introduction, if possible, of the strict implementation of at least those laws that already exist. This is felt even by the government itself (which knows well what the landowners do to their peasants and how much the latter slaughter the former every year), as is proved by its timid and fruitless half-measures in favor of the white negroes. and the comic replacement of a one-tailed whip with a three-tailed whip ».

4. Read the text of A.P. Chekhov's story "On the dangers of tobacco" and describe the speaker presented in this work.

5. What are the methods of the court speaker in the statement of A.F. Koni:

« A judicial orator and a political orator have to act quite differently. Speeches of a political nature cannot serve as models for a judicial orator, for political eloquence is not at all the same as judicial eloquence. Appropriate and clever quotations, well-thought-out examples, subtle and witty comparisons, arrows of irony, and even the rise to the height of universal principles do not always achieve their goal in court. At the basis of judicial eloquence lies the need prove and convince, that is, in other words, the need to persuade listeners to join their opinion. But the political orator will achieve little by persuading and proving. He has the same task as the servant of the arts, although in different forms. He must, in the words of George Sand, "montreretemouvoin", that is, to illuminate a well-known phenomenon with all the power of one's word and, being able to catch the attitude that is being created by the majority towards this phenomenon, to give this attitude an expression that affects the feeling. Number, quantity, space and time, which play such a role in the critical evaluation of evidence and evidence in the analysis criminal case, only fruitlessly burden the speech of a political orator. The speech of the latter should represent a mosaic, not a carefully drawn picture in all details, but sharp general contours and Rembrant's chiaroscuro. It should bind together the feelings excited by a vivid image, and give them embodiment in a light by assimilation, a full-fledged word in content.

6. What qualities of T.N. Granovsky as a lecturer are evidenced by the memoirs of B.N. Chicherin, A.I. Herzen ?

“The images of the mighty Hohenstaufen and the great popes passed before the listeners as if alive, heartfelt participation was excited for the tragic fate of Konradin and King Enzio, languishing in prison, the pure and meek figure of Louis aroseIX, mournfully looking back, and the proud, boldly and shamelessly moving forward figure of Philip the Handsome. And all these artistic images were imbued with warm heartfelt participation in the human sides of the outlined faces. All of Granovsky's teaching was thoroughly saturated with humanity, an appreciation of everything human in a person, no matter what party he belongs to, no matter in which direction he looks. Those lofty moral principles, which in their purity were expressed in the presentation of the general course of human development, were also introduced into the depiction of individuals and private phenomena. And all this, finally, received a special poetic charm from the amazing grace and nobility of the teacher's speech. No one could speak such a noble language as Granovsky. This ability, now completely lost, appeared in him as a natural gift, as an attribute of his sublime and poetic nature. It was not eloquence, bubbling up and captivating listeners with its ardor. The speech was quiet and restrained, but free, and at the same time surprisingly elegant, always imbued with feeling, capable of captivating with its form and content to touch the deepest strings of the human soul. When Granovsky addressed the audience with a heartfelt word, there was no way to remain indifferent; the whole audience was carried away by irresistible delight. This was greatly facilitated by the very poetic personality of the teacher, the high moral system with which he was thoroughly imbued, the deep sympathy and respect that he inspired for himself. He had such a harmonious combination of all the higher aspects of human nature, and the depth of thought, and the strength of talent, and warmth of the heart, and outward affectionate courtesy, that anyone who approached him could not but become attached to him with all his soul ... "(B.N. Chicherin)

“... Following that, I also had to see the success of Granovsky, and not like that. I'm talking about his first public course in the medieval history of France and England."

“Granovsky's lectures,” Chaadaev told me, leaving the auditorium chock-full of ladies and all of Moscow's secular society after the third or fourth reading, “are of historical significance. I absolutely agree with him. Granovsky made a living room out of the audience, a meeting place bcau mond "a. To do this, he did not dress up stories in lace and blond; on the contrary, his speech was strict, extremely serious, full of strength, courage and poetry, which powerfully shocked the listeners, woke them up. His courage got away with him not from concessions, but from the meekness of expressions, which was so natural to him, from the absence of maxims. a" la francaise putting huge dots on tinyі like moralizing after a fable. Outlining the events, artistically grouping them, he spoke by them in such a way that a thought that was not said by him, but completely clear, seemed all the more familiar to the listener because it seemed to be his own thought.

The conclusion of the first course was for him an infusiona standing ovation, something unheard of at Moscow University. When he finished, deeply moved, thanked the audience, everyone jumped up in some kind of intoxication, the ladies waved their handkerchiefs, others rushed to the pulpit, shook hands with him, demanded his portrait. I myself saw young people with flushed cheeks, crying through their tears: “Bravo! Bravo!" There was no way out…”(A.I. Herzen)

“Mr. Granovsky reads quite quietly, his organ is poor, but how richly this physical defect is redeemed by the beautiful language, the fire that connects his speech, the fullness of thought and the fullness of love, which are obvious not only in words, but also in the most noble appearance of the associate professor! In his weak voice there is something penetrating into the soul, causing attention. There is a lot of poetry in his speech and not the slightest refinement, nothing for effect; on his thoughtful face one can see the inner conscientious work ... "(A.I. Herzen)

“The main character of Granovsky's readings: an extremely developed humanity, sympathy, open to everything living, strong, poetic - sympathy, ready to respond to everything; love is wide and comprehensive, love for the emerging, which he joyfully welcomes, and love for the dying, which he buries with tears. Nowhere did a word of hatred escape to anything in his readings; he passed by the coffins, opened them - but did not offend the dead. The daring idea of correcting the royal course of the life of mankind was far from his scientific view, he everywhere submitted to the objective significance of events and sought only to reveal their meaning. It seems to me that it was precisely this nature of teaching that aroused such a strong interest in the readings of Granovsky ... "

(A.I. Herzen)

“... But Granovsky was neither a fighter, like Belinsky, nor a dialectician, like Bakunin. His strength was not in sharp polemics, not in bold denial, but precisely in the positive moral influence, in the unconditional trust that he instilled, in the artistry of his nature, the calm evenness of his spirit, in the purity of his character and in the constant, deep protest against the existing order in Russia. Not only his words had an effect, but also his silence, his thought, not having the right to speak out, appeared so clearly in the features of his face that it was hard not to read it ... "(A.I. Herzen)

7. What features of the language form and the development of the thought of this fragment of the public lecture by K.A. Timiryazev “Photography of nature and photography in nature” (read on March 19, 1895 for students of secondary educational institutions) make it possible to feel the extraordinary skill of the lecturer?

“Exactly 300 years ago, at the end of the greatXVIcentury, great in the role that he played in the development of sciences and arts and even more so in the liberation of the human spirit from the age-old shackles that weighed over him, under the clear sky of Italy, on the shores of the enchanting Gulf of Naples, a discovery was made, the fruits of which were fully used only we are the people of the endXIX. It was made by an original man, half talented scientist, half mystic, science fiction writer Gian Battista Porta, whose portrait, accompanied, according to the spirit of the times, by the symbolic emblems of his activity, adorns the title of his book "Magia Naturalis". This discovery consisted in the fact that if a hole is made in a dark room (or in a box), and even better, if this hole is covered with glass lentils, then on the opposite wall we will see an image of houses, trees, gardens, statues in front of it, and most importantly, Porta exclaims in naive delight, moving images of passers-by, so clear that we can recognize among them our acquaintances. This device, the camera obscura, forever immortalized the name of Gian Battista Porta. And - what is especially curious - this "Magia Naturalis" was only an overgrown edition of the book that the talented Porta published for the first time when he was only 15 years old - a fact that is especially useful to emphasize to this audience, since. he vividly illustrates the words of a French writer: genius is the idea of youth, developed by adulthood.

8. What is rhetorically interesting about the excerpt from the public lecture by K.A. Timiryazev “The Plant as a Source of Strength” (read in St. Petersburg in 1875)?

“Once, somewhere, a ray of the sun fell on the earth, but it did not fall on barren soil, it fell on a green blade of wheat, or rather, on a chlorophyll grain. Striking against it, it went out, ceased to be light, but did not disappear. He only spent on inner work, he cut, broke the bond between the particles of carbon and oxygen, connected in carbon dioxide. The liberated carbon, combining with water, formed starch ... In one form or another, it became part of the bread that served us as food. It has been transformed into our muscles, into our nerves. And now the carbon atoms in our bodies tend to reconnect with oxygen, which the blood carries to all ends of our body. At the same time, the ray of the sun, hidden in them in the form of chemical tension, again takes the form of a clear force. This ray of sunshine warms us. He sets us in motion. Perhaps at this moment it is playing in our brain...

Food serves as a source of strength in our body only because it is nothing but canned sun rays.

9. What rhetorical means are used in the following excerpts from the lectures of V.O. Klyuchevsky?

“... The palace was either a masquerade with dressing up, or a gambling house. The ladies changed their costumes two, three times a day, the empress even five times, almost never wearing the same dress twice. From morning to evening there was gambling for large sums among gossip, underground intrigues, gossip, falsehoods and flirting, flirting without end. In the evenings, the empress herself took an active part in the game. The cards saved the court hostel: these people had no other reconciling interest, meeting daily in the palace, they hated each other heartily. They had nothing to talk about decently among themselves; they knew how to show their mind only in mutual slander; to start talking about science, art or anything like that, they were wary of being completely ignorant; half of this society, according to Catherine, probably could barely read and barely a third could write. It was a uniform court footman, morals and concepts little different from the livery, despite the presence in her midst of high-profile old family names, titled and simple.

“... Elizabeth reigned for 20 years, from 1741 to 1761, and her reign was not without glory. She was a cheerful and pious queen, from Vespers she went to the ball and from the ball to matins. Loving and deeply honoring the shrine of the Russian Church, she also loved everything pleasant that can be borrowed from the Catholic and Protestant West. Always sighing for monastic life, she left behind a wardrobe of several thousand dresses. She had a huge influence on the fate of Western Europe and until the end of her life she was sure that it was possible to travel to England by land. She defeated Frederick the Great, took Berlin and diligently gave her ministers drink of Madeira, which was not found at every European court. Brought up by the Frenchman Rambour, under compulsion to reign in the national spirit, she passionately loved the French and knew the secrets of Russian cuisine to the subtlety, had no rivals in the manufacture of Russian dishes ... "

10. Read a fragment from the speech of V.O. Klyuchevsky “Eugene Onegin and his ancestors”, delivered at a meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature on February 1, 1887, find the language means of establishing contact with the audience; words expressing appreciation. What means of expression does the author use?

“During the life of Pushkin, “Eugene Onegin” was the subject of criticism or surprise as a major literary news. Now it is simply a subject of study as a historical and literary monument. For us, it was neither one nor the other: we did not analyze it, as we analyzed then the new stories of Turgenev, but we did not comment on it, like "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" or "Undergrowth". It was not for us only a novel in verse, an accidental and fleeting literary impression; it was an event in our youth, our biographical feature, a turning point in development, like leaving school or first love. At the first reading, we defenselessly surrendered to the charm of the verse, the descriptions of nature, the sincerity of lyrical digressions, admired the details that constituted the scenery of the drama played out in the novel, not paying special attention to the drama itself. Then, re-reading the novel, we began to think about this drama, its simple plot and tragic denouement, asking ourselves questions and extracting everyday rules from the answers to them. We bitterly reproached Onegin for why he killed Lensky, although we did not quite understand why Lensky challenged Onegin to a duel. Each of us made a promise to ourselves not to reject so coldly the love of a girl who would love him as much as Tatyana loved Onegin, and especially if she wrote him an equally good letter. Reading Onegin, we learned for the first time to observe and understand everyday phenomena, to formulate our vague feelings, to understand disorderly impulses and aspirations. It was the first worldly textbook for us, which we timidly began leafing through as we completed our school textbooks; it served us as a "trembling bridge of ruin" along which we crossed the seething dark stream that separated our school lessons from our first worldly experiences. Perhaps such an attitude towards the novel was a pedagogical oversight of our educators or our aesthetic vice; perhaps this was only a premature and excessive strain of aesthetic feeling, which protected us from many real vices. I do not know that; I only note the fact without appreciating it, without pronouncing judgment on my youth. You judge and, if you like, condemn us or our educators for this.

11. What advice can a novice lecturer get from the following words of V.O. Klyuchevsky:

“The harmony of thought and word is a very important and even often fatal issue for our teacher brother. We sometimes spoil the whole matter by unwillingness to think how to say in a given case, and the root of our grave failures is in our inability to express our thought, to dress it properly. Sometimes we clothe a poor, thin thought in such a magnificent form that it gets confused, lost in the unnecessary folds of its own shell and is difficult to reach, and sometimes we express a healthy, fresh thought in such a way that it withers and fades in our expression, like a flower that has fallen under heavy, hard sole. In everything where the word serves as an intermediary before people, especially in teaching, it is inconvenient both to speak and not to speak.

Give evidence of the figurativeness and picturesqueness of this text.

12. Based on the statements of famous theorists of rhetoric of the 19th century, formulate the requirements for the construction and linguistic design of speech:

"The focus of attention, perception should always be content."(A.I. Galich)

"Let the indication of the content always be as clear as possible, and be as short as possible behind everything."(A.I. Galich)

“However, no matter how important and beneficial distribution may be for the speaker, he must carefully watch so as not to weaken their strength by bad use, and this would inevitably follow when he wanted to act with verbosity, repeating what has already been said, only in other terms...(A.I. Galich)

“But no matter how good and important the figures are, the writer must be extremely careful in using them and not think that the triumph of speech depends on them. On the contrary, too frequent and inappropriate decorations give the language a forced, pedantic form. Feeling and the heat of passion - this is what animates the word, which curly expressions serve only as clothing.(A.I. Galich)

“Luxury decorations only weakly illuminate dark speech, tire the listener or reader, without delivering any pleasure.”(I.I. Davydov)

“Everything that we ourselves clearly understand, we can also clearly convey to others, if only we delve into the exposition. On the contrary, one should not write about a subject that we do not understand at all.(I.I. Davydov)

“Thought and sound, like the body of thought, act on each other mutually and are closely connected with each other.”(I.I. Davydov)

“In general, it is indecent to use figures and metaphors indiscriminately: they must always be consistent with thoughts and feelings.”(I.I. Davydov)

“There are people who consider eloquence in loud words and expressions and think that to be eloquent means to shine with rhetorical ornaments, and the more grandiloquent, the more eloquent, it seems to them. They care little about thoughts and their disposition and want to act on the mind, will and passions with paths and figures. They are wrong."(N.F. Koshansky)

“The force of expressions must be commensurate with the movement of feeling, and turns of speech with its dignity. Excessive exclamations, for example, and a play on words lead nowhere ... "(K.P. Zelenetsky)

“Figures are introduced into speech not for the purpose of decorating it, but only when the natural course of thought requires it.”(K.P. Zelenetsky)

“Oratorical recitation requires that every word in the mouth of the speaker be animated, that this animation be expressed in the look and in the movements of the body, which ... must correspond to the tone of speech and its various changes.”(K.P. Zelenetsky)

“All the separate parts of the word must certainly hasten to achieve this triple goal [teaching, persuasion, the art of touching the listener].”(A.F. Merzlyakov)

“The most important thing of a speaker who wants to possess the hearts of his listeners is the excitation of passions ... For the successful management of passions, the speaker needs a deep knowledge of the human heart ...”(A.F. Merzlyakov)

“To discover others in one thought, to look for new ones in a given sentence, means to think. One cannot compose who does not know how and does not want to learn to think. One cannot compose who does not know how and does not want to learn to think; good writing means good thinking.(N.F. Koshansky)

“The style should be appropriate to the subject... The style should be appropriate to the persons, place and time… Thoughts, pictures and all the decorations were so close and peculiar to the subject…”(N.F. Koshansky)

13. Read the following review of the "General Rhetoric" by N. Koshansky V. G. Belinsky and make theses representing the views of a revolutionary democrat on the tasks, purpose, content of rhetoric as a science and ways of mastering eloquence. What in the rhetorical system proposed by N. Koshansky causes a negative reaction from the critic?

“... Most often we mix up the concepts: the science and art . The very word the science with us incorrectly expresses the concept contained in it. Our common people correctly use this word when speaking of a boy sent to learn shoemaking: he is given to science . What is called scientiascience Wissenschaft , we should have called not science , a knowledge . Science teaches nothing, learns nothing: it gives knowledge of the laws according to which everything that exists exists; it brings the diversity of homogeneous objects into an ideal unity. Art has a more practical meaning: it is more of an ability, a talent, skill doing something rather than knowing something. The arts are of two kinds: creative and technical. An active, productive ability first occurs in people, as a gift of nature; study and labor develop this gift, but the gift itself is not given to those who are not given it by nature. Technical arts are given to people science in the sense, as the common people understand this word, in the sense of practical teaching, study, habit. And the creative arts have their own technical side, accessible even to incompetent people: one can learn to write light and smooth poetry, to disassemble notes and play them better or worse, copy copies from originals, etc., but one cannot become a poet, musician, painter routine. Everything that exists, exists on the basis of immutable and reasonable laws, and therefore is subject to the conduct of science (knowledge); consequently, art is also subject to science, but not otherwise, as only an object of knowledge, and not at all as an object of learning, that is, a skill that can be learned through science. It is true that the arts are learned, especially those in which the technical side is predominantly important and difficult; but here the teaching is of a special kind—a practical teaching, not a theoretical one, a teaching not according to a book, but according to the visual instructions of the master. So are all technical arts, all crafts. Write the clearest, most sensible guide to the art of sewing boots - the most intelligent and capable person at fifty, a hundred years old will not learn to sew boots from your book as well as he would have learned in a few months from a good master, through his visual instructions. and your exercise and skill. This is precisely the relationship between science and art. Some aesthetic critic judges better than an artist about the work of this artist himself, but he himself is not able to create anything. Scientist in the field of art knows artist can.

But not everyone, unfortunately, understands this even now; even less everyone understood it before. That's where it came from rhetoric , as the science of eloquence, a science that took anyone to learn to make a great orator; that's where it came from piitika like the science of making poets even people who can only pave the pavement.

Rhetoric got its start from the ancients. Socialism and the republican form of government of ancient societies made eloquence the most important and necessary art, for it opened the door to power and command. Is it any wonder that everyone and everyone wanted to be orators, wanted to influence the crowd through the art of speaking eloquently? Therefore, they studied the speeches of great orators, analyzed them and came to the discovery of tropes and figures, to the sources of invention; began to look for general laws in particular cases. The speaker greatly stirred the crowd with a powerful feeling, expressed in the figure of questioning, - and now the powerful feeling was thrown aside, and the figure of questioning was taken into account: a spectacular figure, and it is necessary to ride on it as often as possible - it will always take you out. This is reminiscent of a fable about a stupid peasant or a stupid monkey, who, seeing that a scientist, starting to read, always put glasses on his nose, also took out glasses and a book, wanted to read and, out of annoyance that she couldn’t read, broke her glasses. But people are sometimes more stupid than monkeys. From observations and analysis of the speeches of great orators, they compiled a collection of some arbitrary rules and called this collection rhetoric. Rhetors appeared who treated speakers as dialecticians and sophists treated philosophers, and began to teach people the art of eloquence; schools started up, but they still didn’t leave speakers, a orators. What is the difference between an orator and a rhetor? The same as between a philosopher and a sophist, between a jury judge (jury ) and a lawyer: a philosopher sees in dialectics a means to reach knowledge of the truth, - a sophist sees in dialectics a means to remain a winner in a dispute; for the philosopher, truth is the goal, dialectics is the means; for the sophist, both truth and falsehood are means, dialectic is the goal; the juror sees his goal in the justification of the innocent, in the condemnation of the guilty; the lawyer sees his goal in justifying his client, whether he is right or wrong - it does not matter. The speaker convinces the crowd of thought, the greatness of which is measured by his animation, his passion, his pathos and, consequently, the heat, brilliance, strength, beauty of his word; the rhetorician does not need the thought he wants to convince the crowd of: the rhetorician is a small man, and his thought may be petty, even he may not have any thought at all, but only a nasty goal - and if only he manages to achieve it, and he doesn't care about anything else. And where the orator takes inspiration, a storm of passions, thunder and lightning, words, there the rhetor wants to take them by paths and figures, commonplaces, chiselled phrases, rounded periods. But in ancient times, rhetoric still had some meaning. When in some republic great people were temporarily transferred, then the people were ruled by loudmouths and rhetoricians, that is, rhetoricians. And how many people would not study rhetoric for such a purpose? - But tell me, for God's sake, why do we need rhetoric in the new world? Why is she even in England and France? After all, Pitt and Fox were not only orators, but also statesmen? After all, in our time, when the entire social machine is so complex, so artificial, even a great orator by talent will not go far if at the same time he is not a statesman. And how will rhetoric make anyone eloquent in England and France, and which of the English and French parliamentary orators was educated in rhetoric? Does rhetoric give anyone the courage to speak in front of a large assembly? Does it give the presence of mind, the ability not to get lost in the face of objections, the ability to repel an objection, to turn again to the interrupted thread of speech, resourcefulness, the talent for the almighty word "by the way"? Here is a well-known example from the ancient world. Demosthenes talked about Philip, and the windy Athenians talked among themselves about the news of the day; an irritated orator begins to tell them an empty fable, and the Athenians listen to him attentively. "Gods! exclaimed the great orator, “a people worthy of your patronage who does not want to listen when they are told about the danger that threatens their country, and listens attentively to a stupid tale! “Of course, this unexpected trick shamed and brought the people to their senses. Tell me: what rhetoric will teach such resourcefulness? After all, such resourcefulness is an inspiration! Should anyone repeat this trick, the crowd will burst out laughing, because the crowd does not like people who are great or resourceful in hindsight. What kind of rhetoric will give a person a stormy fire of inspiration, passion, pathos? We will be objected: of course, it will not give, but it will develop these happy gifts of nature. Not true! they can be developed by practice, a tribune, not rhetoric. The genius of a commander needs good books on the art of war, but he develops on the battlefield. And how could rhetoric develop the genius of the orator: is it really through tropes, metaphors and figures? But what are tropes, metaphors and figures, if the expression of passion is not the product of inspiration? A true orator uses tropes and figures without thinking about them. The energetic expression with which he stirred the crowd sometimes escapes his lips by accident, and he himself did not foresee it, did not find it in his head, being separated from it only by two words of the preceding phrase. Pupils are asked to write paths and figures: doesn’t this mean asking them work – be inspired, passionate? It is like a nightingale in the claws of a cat that makes it sing. Yes, what does not happen in the world! In the old days in seminaries, in the poetry class, students were asked to describe various edifying subjects in verse ...

So what are the benefits of rhetoric? Not only rhetoric, even the theory of eloquence (as a science of eloquence) cannot exist. Eloquence is an art - not whole and complete, like poetry: in eloquence there is a goal, always practical, always determined by time and circumstances. Poetry enters eloquence as an element; it is not an end in it, but a means. Often the most captivating, the most pathetic places in oratory are suddenly replaced by statistical figures, dry reasoning, because the crowd is convinced not only by the beauty of live oral speech, but at the same time by deed and facts. One orator powerfully dominates the crowd with the power of his stormy inspiration; the other with insinuating grace of presentation; the third - mainly irony, mockery, wit; the fourth by the consistency and vagueness of the presentation, and so on. Each of them speaks in accordance with the subject of his speech, with the nature of the crowd listening to him, with the circumstances of the present moment. If Demosthenes suddenly rose up now and spoke in the English lower house in the purest English, the English gentlemen and John Bull would have sneered at him; and our modern orators would have been badly received in ancient Greece and Rome. Moreover, a French speaker in England, and an English speaker in France, would not have been successful, even if they, each in his own country, were accustomed to rule over the crowd by the power of his word. And therefore, if you want to give people who are not preparing to be orators an idea of what eloquence is, and to give people who want to be orators a means to study eloquence, then do not write rhetoric, but sort out the speeches of famous orators of all peoples. and all ages, provide them with a detailed biography of each orator, with the necessary historical notes, and you will render a great service to both orators and non-orators with this book.

But why do we have rhetoric in Russia? - Then, to teach children to compose? .. Many laugh at the definition of grammar, what does she teach speak and write correctly . The definition is very clever and very true! A general grammar is a philosophy of language, a philosophy of the human word: it reveals a system of general laws of human speech that are equally characteristic of every language. Private grammar teaches nothing more than how to speak and write correctly in one or another language: it teaches not to make mistakes in the agreement of words, in etymological and syntactic forms. But grammar doesn't teach well to speak, because speaking correctly and speaking well are not the same thing at all. It even happens that speaking and writing too correctly means speaking and writing badly. Another seminarian speaks and writes like a personified grammar, one cannot listen to him or read him; and another commoner speaks incorrectly, makes mistakes both in declensions and in conjugations, and you will listen to him. It does not follow from this that grammar should not be taught, and that grammar is an absurd science: quite the contrary! The irregular speech of a commoner gifted with the ability to speak well would be even better if he knew grammar. The point is only that grammar should know its limits and obey the language whose rules it explains: then it will teach right and write and read; but still only right , no more: teach the same to speak and write well - none of her business. As far as we can guess, this is what rhetoric claims to be. Ridiculousness, sheer absurdity! Whoever is preparing to be a state speaker, let him study the speeches of state speakers, listen to them, as often as possible he happens in the society of state people; whoever is preparing to be a lawyer, let him not leave the courts, let him seek the company of lawyers; but it is even better if both of them, as often as possible, try their hand at their chosen field; whoever wants to shine with his conversation in secular society, let him live in the world; whoever wants to devote himself to literature, let him study the writers of his own country and follow the modern movement of literature. But both the one and the other, and the third, and the fourth, let the rhetoricians fear most of all! It will be said that the art of speaking, especially the art of writing, has its own technical side, the study of which is very important. Agree; but this aspect is by no means subject to rhetoric. She can be called style , and it should constitute an additional, final part of the grammar, the highest syntax, what was called in the ancient Latin grammars:syntaxisornataandsyntaxisfigurata . This higher syntax should include chapters: 1) on sentences and periods, 2) on tropes, and 3) on the general qualities of the syllable - purity, clarity, definiteness, simplicity, and so on. in relation to expression. In the chapter on sentences and periods, general forms of speech based on the logical structure of thought should be explained; in the period must show a syllogism; it is necessary to pay special attention to separating the external form from the internal and to teach, as far as possible, to avoid the school form of expression. So, for example, every schoolchild, especially those who studied according to the "Rhetoric" of Mr. Koshansky, is a necessary affiliation conditional period honors unions: if, then; it is necessary to impress upon him that a conditionality may also lie in a period without if and then, such as: tell the truth, lose friendship, and that this last form is simpler, lighter, and better than the first. In the chapter on trails one should not chase after vulgar examples or look for them without fail in the works of famous writers, but take them mainly in ordinary, colloquial language, in proverbs and sayings. It is necessary to show the student that the paths have created a need figurative expressions and that tropes best explain and justify the philosophical position: "Nothing can be in the mind that was not in the feeling." The best examples of tropes should be like this: sharp mind, dull memory, traces of crime, to have a piece of bread etc. As for the figures, which, as you know, are divided by rhetoricians into word shapes and thought patterns , then it is best not to mention them at all. Who can count all the turns, all the forms of animated speech? Have the orators counted all the figures? No, the doctrine of figures leads only to phrases. All rules about figures are completely arbitrary, because they are derived from special cases. As for the chapter "On the style in general," it should consist of experimental observations, of general remarks, and should by no means pretend to be a scientific exposition. In order to teach a student to master a phrase and not be at a loss in expressing thoughts, theory is least of all needed and practice is most of all. Exercise him in translating poetry into prose, and most importantly, in translations from foreign languages. This is the true and only school of stylistics. The struggle between the spirit of two different languages, the comparison of the means of one and the other for expressing the same thought, the constant effort to find in one's language a phrase that fully corresponds to the phrase of a foreign language: this will best untie the student's pen and, moreover, will best make him understand in the spirit of the mother tongue. But these so-called sources of invention these topics, these common places (lieuxcommuns), which the rhetoric is proud of as its true and main content - all this is decidedly trifles, and trifles are harmful, destructive. The boy is given an essay on some descriptive, and most often abstract topic: he is ordered either to describe spring, winter, sunrise, or to prove that laziness is the mother of vices, that vice is always punished, and virtue always triumphs; my goodness, what barbarism! Boy composes ! The boy is a writer! But do you know, rhetoric gentlemen, that a boy who composes is almost the same as a boy who smokes, follows women, drinks vodka?... adult person. Where can he talk about nature, when all the charm, all the bliss of his age lies in the fact that he loves nature, not knowing how and for what? And you make him find the reasons for his love for nature and analyze this feeling! The boy loves his comrades, is friendly with some of them - why? - out of simple sympathy that attracts a person to a person, connects age with age - and you force him to be convinced that this happens in him now from one thing, then from another, now from the need for the help of his neighbor, now from the benefit of common labor! What comes out of it? - the boy was a kind naughty who loved his comrades simply because he had fun with them - this boy, experienced in rhetoric, begins to divide his feeling into a simple acquaintance, into affection and friendship; friendship he has several kinds, and he already begins to direct his disposition towards his neighbors according to prescriptions, and his feeling is artificial, false. From the living, healthy fullness of the child's feelings becomes a reflector, a resonator, smart ass, and the better he speaks about feelings, the poorer he is in feelings - the smarter he is in words, the emptier he is inwardly. Love is not far from friendship - and before the indefinite need for this feeling awakens in him, he already knows love in theory, speaks of betrayal, jealousy and bloody revenge. He falls in love not out of involuntary attraction, but by choice, by reflection, and he describes, analyzes his feeling either in a letter to a friend, or in his diary, or in poems that he has been scribbling for a long time. The result of all this is that there is nothing true left in the boy, that he is all false, that in him direct feeling has been replaced by a whim of thought. Before he feels anything, he will name it, define it. He doesn't live, he talks. And now he is no longer a boy, he is already twenty years old - and at this happy age of the fullness of life he is an old man: he looks at everything with contempt, with irony; he experienced everything, he knew everything; there is no happiness for him - only disappointment remains, only lost hopes yeah, its present is boring, future is bleak. Here it is - moral corruption, here it is - corruption of the soul and heart! Of course, there are many reasons for this phenomenon, and it would be ridiculous to place all the blame on rhetoric; but it is clear and irrefutable that rhetoric is one of the main causes of such a sad phenomenon. The boy is given a topic: "Vice is punished, virtue triumphs." The essay, in the form of a hriya or reasoning, must be submitted in three days, and sometimes tomorrow. What can a boy know about vice or virtue? For him, these are abstract and indefinite concepts; in his mind there is no idea of vice and virtue: what will he write about them? Don't worry - the rhetoric will help him out: it will give him magic questions: who, what, where, when, how, why and so on, questions that he has only to answer in order to, according to all the rules of science, talk nonsense about what he does not know. Rhetoric will teach him to take arguments and proofs from the cause, from the opposite, from the likeness, from the example, from the evidence, and then draw the conclusion. Amazing school of phrasing! It's clear that“Rhetoric is the science of writing beautifully about everything that you don’t know, that you don’t feel, that you don’t understand.” Amazing science! she makes a stutterer a rhetorician, a fool a thinker, a mute speaker. And therefore, when they read the drama in which the human heart is slandered, they say: rhetoric! When they read the novel, they read an empty-voiced poem without feeling and thought, they say: rhetoric! which the reality depicted in it is slandered, they say: rhetoric! When they hear a bribe-taker talking about good intentions, a hypocrite talking about corrupting morals, they say: rhetoric! In a word, everything false, vulgar, every form without content, all this is called rhetoric! Learn, dear children, rhetoric: good science!

Every science must have a definite content that belongs to it alone; it should not combine several sciences all of a sudden. Since science is an organic construction of the ideal essence of the object that constitutes its content, everything in it must emerge and develop from one thought, and this thought must be completely captured by its definition. Mr. Koshansky did not even bother to define what rhetoric is and what its content is. He begins by saying that nothing distinguishes man from other animals so much as mind power and the gift of the word . Until now, we thought that man is different from animals intelligence, but not mind power. According to Mr. Koshansky's definition, it turns out that animals also have a mind, only not as strong as a man's. The power of the mind, according to Mr. Koshansky, is revealed in concepts, judgments and inferences , which are the subject of logic. The gift of the word lies in the most beautiful capabilities to express feelings and thoughts, what constitutes an object literature; and literature includes grammar, rhetoric and poetry (poetry is a science! ..) and borders with aesthetics. Then, grammar is studied by Mr. Koshansky words; rhetoric - mostly thoughts (with which logic had recently dealt with him); poetry - feelings (therefore, there are no thoughts in poetry! ..); in aesthetics stored (as if in an archive!) dreamy beginnings not only verbal sciences (grammar, rhetoric and poetry! ..), but also all the fine arts ...

It's boring to talk about such oddities ... sorry - about such a rhetoric, that is, about such a set of words, devoid of any content, any meaning, any meaning. Mr. Koshansky's "rhetoric", like all rhetoricians, also speaks of the types of prose writings, teaches: how to write history, how to write scholarly treatises, how to describe this or that, how to write letters... What an absurdity! Is it all learned? It's like learning (from a book) how to behave at a funeral and how to behave at a wedding, how to address a ball and how to talk at a dinner party. Give a young man a few good historical works to read, introduce him to good authors, among whose works there are descriptions, and arguments, and letters, and conversations, and he himself will understand how what is written. But you certainly want to distort the natural development, you want to acquaint the minds of children with objects that did not strike their feelings, and you are surprised that automatons come out of your students who know very well how to write something, but they themselves do not know how to write anything and do not able to understand and appreciate what others have written. Mr. Koshansky, according to the custom of all rhetoricians, from Vasily Kirillovich Trediakovsky, professor of eloquence, to the rhetoricians of our time, divides the syllable into high, medium and short and explains in detail which compositions are written in what syllable. Mr. Koshansky forgot Buffon's thoughtful expression: in the syllable the whole person, - I forgot that, in addition to the unprecedented high, medium and low syllables, there is also an innumerable number of really existing syllables: there is the syllable of Lomonosov, there is the syllable of Derzhavin, the syllable of Fonvizin, Karamzin, Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, Pushkin, Griboyedov and so on. He forgot that there were not three syllables, but as many as there were and are gifted writers in the world.

And then: what kind of empty manner is it to divide compositions into genera according to their external form and to determine what kind of composition is appropriate for what syllable? You have witnessed the flood that destroyed the city: it is up to you to describe it in the form of a letter or in the form of a simple story. The style of your description will depend on the nature of the impression that this event made on you. How can you tell what style you should write a letter to your brother about your father's death? In his instruction on writing discourses, Mr. Koshansky introduced logic: it is a pity that he did not include either geography or mineralogy in his rhetoric!.. What absurdities are written under the name "rhetorician"!

At the beginning of the 19th century, Russian rhetoric experienced its heyday. Among the manuals on rhetoric, a special place is occupied by the textbooks of Η. Φ. Koshansky (1784-1831), classical philologist, translator, teacher of literature at the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum. Η. Φ. Koshansky owns two remarkable works: General Rhetoric (1829) and Private Rhetoric (1832).

Guides n. Φ. Koshansky were focused on classical examples of belles-lettres and gave a very solid education. Studying rhetoric, a student of the Russian gymnasium mastered the skills of understanding classical works and independent literary creativity. The picture of the genera and types of literature in the "Private Rhetoric" Η. Φ. Koshansky, linking Russian literature with classical and Church Slavonic, revealed a broad perspective of the culture of the word. Textbooks of literature by N. F. Koshansky, A. F. Merzlyakov, A. I. Galich, I. I. Davydov and other authors formed several generations of talented and educated Russian people, to whom we owe the flowering of national culture in the 19th century.

In the first half of the 19th century, a number of literary critics, led by V. G. Belinsky, unleashed a propaganda campaign against rhetoric. In the view of the secular society of that time, fiction and literary criticism were the only kind of verbal creativity. As a result, in the second half of the 19th century, rhetoric was excluded from the education system, and its place was taken by the obligatory study of literary writings and the opinions of literary critics on various issues of public life6.

The repeatedly republished courses of rhetoric by A.F. Merzlyakov (1809-1828), N.F. Koshansky (1829-1850), K.P. the heyday of Russian rhetoric.

Russian rhetoric of the late 18th - early 19th centuries had a traditional three-part structure - invention, arrangement, expression - and considered a classic set of rhetoric subjects: common places, the doctrine of passions, periods, tropes, figures, etc.

A characteristic feature of Russian rhetoric, which distinguished it from all other rhetoric, was its division into general and private. General rhetoric considered communication the laws of speech, while private rhetoric described prose, its types and varieties. This tradition of Russian rhetoric came from M.V. Lomonosov and was continued by outstanding Russian philologists Ya.V. Tolmachev, N.F. Koshansky, M.M. Speransky, K.P. Zelenetsky and many others.

In the second half of the 19th century, the gradual decline of rhetoric as a science of prose (business, scientific, oratory) begins. The focus of philological thought is the study of artistic prose and poetic forms of speech.

A new subject appeared in the education system, called "Theory of Literature". School normative manuals have been published under this name since the 70s of the 19th century. until the 20s of the 20th century. The content of these manuals shows that the teaching of philology at school is gradually more and more oriented towards the exclusive study of folklore and fiction. If the early manuals on the theory of literature include the study of prose forms of speech, such as documents, "scientific prose", then later manuals, such as D.I. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, all attention is given to artistic speech.

The new academic discipline took from rhetoric a number of concepts and even entire sections, for example, the doctrine of composition, speech styles, and figures of style. But the traditional three-part scheme of rhetoric is broken. Many issues related to the presentation of invention, arrangement and expression are omitted. Thus, as an independent academic discipline, rhetoric was lost by the second half of the 19th century.

Rhetoric, which has its own subject of study, is a continuation of knowledge obtained from general information about the language, which is recorded in separate sections of school linguistics (spelling, orthoepy, morphology, word formation, syntax, punctuation, etc.). In accordance with the tradition of Russian classical education, elementary information about the language (phonetic and grammatical) was always given at the beginning, skills and abilities to read and write were formed; then grammar was proposed as a general normalized idea of the correctness of the language with the sections listed above; then followed the transition to rhetoric, which meant learning to use speech in order to form a personality. At least that was the case until the middle of the 19th century. One of the ideas of the rhetoric theorists of the middle of the 19th century was to prepare students of the rhetorical class to master the Word in all the richness of real social and speech connections. It is with this that the classification of genera and types of literature that students were supposed to learn is connected: from learning to write letters (everyday and business) to knowing how scholarly, historical, philosophical essays are compiled, how oratorical speeches are prepared and delivered. Classifications of types of speeches or texts, which were proposed by the teachers A.S. Pushkin and M.Yu. Lermontov N.F. Koshansky and A.F. Merzlyakov, tended to teach all types of speech that exist in real practice. However, it was the rhetoric of the middle of the 19th century that did not reach the most important of the types of speech - everyday practical speech, which is why K.P. ". It was the lack of attention to everyday prose that led rhetoric to decline, and the poetics of the natural school, which focused on real social problems, to the establishment of fiction as the most important type of literature.

K.P. Zelenetsky were heard only partially: everyday prose was reflected in the works of writers of the natural school - and this was another blow to the "old rhetoric", which did not keep up with the real needs of speech practice. In the middle of the 19th century, rhetoric was criticized and remade into stylistics and the theory of literature, the subject of which was the predominant study of fiction, the analysis of ideological opinions expressed by the artists of the word, and precisely according to the scheme created in the middle of the 19th century (and not at all after 1917), Russian language and literature continue to be taught in our country to this day.

With the removal of rhetoric from the curriculum, the child himself was thrown out of the cradle. The subject that would be really responsible for "speech" did not remain in the composition of philological disciplines. "The subject of rhetoric is speech" - so very briefly and clearly introduced the textbook "Theory of Literature" of 1851 into the subject of rhetoric and literature, where the head of the Department of the Russian Language and Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences I.I. Davydov contaminated and edited the best textbooks at that time N.F. Koshansky and K.P. Zelenetsky.

political speakers. Oratory in Russia Russian orators of the 19th century

Gorgias of Leontina

Demosthenes

Mark Tullius Cicero

Abraham Lincoln

Winston Churchill

Russian speakers

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

4 Russian judicial orators of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries

4 Russian judicial orators of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries

Similar Documents

Notable foreign speakers

Adolf Gitler

Winston Churchill

Russian speakers

Anatoly Fedorovich Koni

Lev Davidovich Trotsky

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

Vladimir Volfovich Zhirinovsky