Пушкин. Нереализованные меткие заметки РСЛ

1. Пушкин и фидеизм

фидеизм = приоритет веры над знанием ... Приоритет «сверхразумных» истин над истинами «разумными», имеет не менее давнюю историю, чем «естественная теология»

У Пушкина тоже приоритет у Веры … не Вяземской: он верит, что


2. Пушкин.
Тотальная пленительность
Советский святой
Идеальная технология обожения
Незаменимая школа нравственности
На все отзываться и везде чувствовать себя как дома.

Истопники мысли и колодцы пития:
Нейро https://yandex.ru/search/?text=++&clid=2237730&lr=213
Возможно, имелась в виду статья Александра Иваницкого «Сталинский Пушкин, или тотальная пленительность героя», опубликованная в «Независимой газете» в 2000 году. В ней речь идёт о книге Юрия Молока «Пушкин в 1937 году. Материалы и исследования по иконографии».  1

Также существует мнение, что мудрость и пленительность произведений А. С. Пушкина, а также духовное богатство его личности — незаменимая школа нравственности для людей всех возрастов.  2

Кроме того, есть мнение, что особенность Пушкина — умение свободно переноситься в самые различные сферы бытия, друг на друга совершенно не похожие, подчас диаметрально противоположные, и везде чувствовать себя как дома.


3. Солилоквий Пушкина

Солилоквий (лат. solus — один, loqui — говорю) — речь, обращённая к самому себе согласно Темирболату А. Б. Поэтика литературы: Учебное пособие. — Алматы, 2011.

Нам известен солилоквий Евг. Онегина, вызванный получением Письма Татьяны с протоколом о намерениях» !Я – твоя!» и просьбах оказать скорую психиатрическую помощь в ликвидации половой истомы, спровоцировавшей изнемогание рассудка дщери земнородной, коей «пришла пора…»
Онегин, знавший происхождение женщин по Теогонии Гесиода, не дал себя заманить в сети Эроса Эротовича а ля Ларина и вывел две знаменитые для некоторых формулы:
Любовью шутит сатана
Любите самого себя
***
Истопники мысли и колодцы пития:
soliloquy, passage in a drama in which the thoughts or feelings of a character are expressed aloud while the character is either alone upon the stage or with the other actors keeping silent. This device was long an accepted dramatic convention, especially in the theater of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries.
1 of 2
Watch William Shakespeare's tragic eponymous protagonist bemoan the unweeded garden that is the worldHamlet speaks his world-weary soliloquy “O, that this too too sullied flesh would melt” (Hamlet, Act I, scene 2).(more)
See all videos for this article
2 of 2
Understand the use of soliloquy in William Shakespeare's “Hamlet”A discussion of William Shakespeare's use of soliloquy in Hamlet.(more)
See all videos for this article
Long, ranting soliloquies were popular in the revenge tragedies of Elizabethan times, such as Thomas Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy, and in the works of Christopher Marlowe, usually substituting the outpouring of one character’s thoughts for normal dramatic writing. William Shakespeare used the device more artfully, as a true indicator of the mind of his characters, as in the famous “To be or not to be” soliloquy in Hamlet. Among the French playwrights, Pierre Corneille made use of the lyrical quality of the form, often producing soliloquies that are actually odes or cantatas, whereas Jean Racine, like Shakespeare, used the soliloquy more for dramatic effect. The soliloquy fell into disfavor after much exaggeration and overuse in the plays of the English Restoration (1660–85), but it remains useful for revealing the inner life of characters.
With the emergence of a more naturalistic drama late in the 19th century, the soliloquy fell into comparative disuse, though it made an appearance in T.S. Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral (1935) and Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons (1960; film 1966), among other plays. Other 20th-century playwrights experimented with various substitutes for the set speech of the soliloquy. Eugene O’Neill in The Great God Brown (performed 1926) had the characters wear masks when they were presenting themselves to the world, but they were maskless when expressing what they really felt or thought in soliloquy. In O’Neill’s Strange Interlude (1928), the characters spoke a double dialogue—one to each other, concealing the truth, and one to the audience, revealing it.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

monologue
drama and literature
Written and fact-checked by  The Editors of Encyclop;dia Britannica 
monologue, in literature and drama, an extended speech by one person. The term has several closely related meanings. A dramatic monologue (q.v.) is any speech of some duration addressed by a character to a second person. A soliloquy (q.v.) is a type of monologue in which a character directly addresses an audience or speaks his thoughts aloud while alone or while the other actors keep silent. In fictional literature, an interior monologue (q.v.) is a type of monologue that exhibits the thoughts, feelings, and associations passing through a character’s mind.

Пример у шекспироведов:

‘O, What A Rogue And Peasant Slave Am I!’ Soliloquy Analysis
Home/Shakespeare Quotes/Shakespeare Soliloquies/‘O, What A Rogue And Peasant Slave Am I!’ Soliloquy Analys...
Read Shakespeare’s ‘O, What A Rogue And Peasant Slave Am I’ soliloquy from Hamlet below with modern English translation and analysis, plus a video performance.

‘O, What A Rogue And Peasant Slave Am I’, Spoken by Hamlet, Act 2 Scene 2
O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!
Is it not monstrous that this player here,
But in a fiction, in a dream of passion,
Could force his soul so to his own conceit
That from her working all his visage wann’d,
Tears in his eyes, distraction in’s aspect,
A broken voice, and his whole function suiting
With forms to his conceit? and all for nothing!
For Hecuba!
What’s Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,
That he should weep for her? What would he do,
Had he the motive and the cue for passion
That I have? He would drown the stage with tears
And cleave the general ear with horrid speech,
Make mad the guilty and appal the free,
Confound the ignorant, and amaze indeed
The very faculties of eyes and ears. Yet I,
A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak,
Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause,
And can say nothing; no, not for a king,
Upon whose property and most dear life
A damn’d defeat was made. Am I a coward?
Who calls me villain? breaks my pate across?
Plucks off my beard, and blows it in my face?
Tweaks me by the nose? gives me the lie i’ the throat,
As deep as to the lungs? who does me this?
Ha!
‘Swounds, I should take it: for it cannot be
But I am pigeon-liver’d and lack gall
To make oppression bitter, or ere this
I should have fatted all the region kites
With this slave’s offal: bloody, bawdy villain!
Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain!
O, vengeance!
Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave,
That I, the son of a dear father murder’d,
Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,
Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words,
And fall a-cursing, like a very drab,
A scullion!
Fie upon’t! foh! About, my brain! I have heard
That guilty creatures sitting at a play
Have by the very cunning of the scene
Been struck so to the soul that presently
They have proclaim’d their malefactions;
For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak
With most miraculous organ. I’ll have these players
Play something like the murder of my father
Before mine uncle: I’ll observe his looks;
I’ll tent him to the quick: if he but blench,
I know my course. The spirit that I have seen
May be the devil: and the devil hath power
To assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps
Out of my weakness and my melancholy,
As he is very potent with such spirits,
Abuses me to damn me: I’ll have grounds
More relative than this: the play ‘s the thing
Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king.
‘O, What A Rogue And Peasant Slave Am I’ Soliloquy Translation
What a deceitful fellow – a rogue, a peasant slave – he was! It was monstrous that this actor had only to imagine grief for his face to go pale and his eyes tostream. In a fiction! A made-up script of passion! He was able to effect a broken voice, a desperation in his body language, and everything he felt necessary to the situation he was imagining. And it was all for nothing! For Hecuba, dead for a thousand years! What was Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba, that he should weep for her? What would that actor do if he had the motive and the reason for grief that he had? He would flood the stage with tears and split the ears of the audience with the language he would find, terrifying the innocent and making the guilty mad. He would bewilder the ignorant and amaze the eyes and ears of all.
He stood up and paced. He was the opposite of the actor: he was a rascal, the mettle of whose character had become tarnished and dull. He was shrinking away from his duty like a John-o-dreams, slow to translate his purpose into action, unable to say a word, no, not even on behalf of a king who had been robbed of his property and most precious life. Was he a coward? The victim of bullies? Would he let them call him names, strike him on his head, pull his beard out and throw it in his face, assassinate his character? Ha! God, yes, he would just take it because it was impossible that he could be anything but pigeon-livered , lacking the gall to summon up enough bitterness to do anything about his father’s murder. Otherwise he would have fed this slave’s intestines to the local kites. The villain! Bloody, filthy villain! Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, cruel villain! Oh vengeance! His heart was beating fast and he was almost breathless from the thoughts that were plaguing him. He sat down again. What an ass he was! What a brave man! That he, the son of a beloved father who had been murdered, with every reason between heaven and hell to act, should unburden his heart with words and descend to cursing, like a whore – a servant. Curse it!
He sat for a moment and an idea that had occurred to him while talking to the actors began to take shape. He had to concentrate on it now. Hmmm. He had heard about guilty people who, while watching a play, had been so affected by the contents of the scene, that they had confessed to their crimes, because murder will always find a way to proclaim itself, even though it has no voice of its own.
The idea crystallized. He would get the players to perform something like the murder of his father in front of his uncle. He would watch his uncle’s reactions. He would probe his very thoughts. If his uncle so much as flinched he would know what to do. The ghost may have been the devil for all he knew, and the devil had the power to take on a pleasing shape. Yes, and perhaps the devil was taking advantage of his weakness and his grief to damn him. He was therefore going to get proof. The play was the thing in which he would catch the conscience of the king.




4. Пушкин и два полюса Монтеня = поучать и рассказывать

В спектре размышлений есть два полюса:
1) поучение
2) сказ

«Я отнюдь не поучаю, а только рассказываю» (Опыты, III, 2).


5. Пушкин Выбор  Воля, Рок или Судьба

1814 – Первая публикация в печати юного Александра Пушкина. В журнале «Вестник Европы» напечатано стихотворение «К другу стихотворцу», завершающееся строками:
«Теперь, любезный друг, я дал тебе совет.
Оставишь ли свирель, умолкнешь или нет?..
Подумай обо всем и выбери любое:
быть славным – хорошо, спокойным – лучше вдвое»

Что выбрал в итоге АС Пушкин известно


6. Пушкин  Без муз и письмен

Без муз и письмен
Все что плен
Без принуда культуры
И научной дури

Вернуться к адаму
В опояс Адама
А лучше Кадмона
Первого дома

И вот заскочил Бог
 Шепнул, покосясь:
- И ты бы, Серж, мог
Я зарыдал, а Боже промок

От слез
Весь трясясь
Я же не знал:
Это он не смог


7. Мифология пушкиноведения

а. Творческий кризис
схизис

б. Дуэль за честь женщины
Не м.б. по определению. Утерянную честь нельзя защитить
Но суть не  в этом.

с. Пророк
Неверное неграмотное понимание миссии и возможностей библейского пророка


8. Пушки Пушкина

Палят …