Pierre Corneille: Horace. Pierre Corneille - Horace Pierre Corneille Horace read

I.L. Finkelstein

The name of Corneille has long and firmly taken a place in the programs of our humanitarian universities, his major works are read and studied by students of universities, pedagogical institutes and institutes of foreign languages. Meanwhile, the Kornelev tragedy "Horace", which rightfully occupies a place next to the "Sid" and is the key to many problems of French classicism, has not yet received sufficient coverage in our press.

This article attempts to fill this gap.

The study of the ideological and concrete historical content of the tragedy "Horace" is combined here with an analysis of the form of the work, which should clearly show their organic unity.

The analysis of "Horace" is preceded by some remarks about the ideological and political orientation and the objective significance of Corneille's work. These remarks seem all the more appropriate because the Kornelev tragedy has been repeatedly falsified in reactionary bourgeois criticism:

The transitional period in the history of France, the 17th century, put forward the important task of creating new state, legal, aesthetic and moral norms. The intensive strengthening of the absolutist state put on the agenda the question of the relationship between the state and society, the state and the individual, the question of the rights and obligations of the state and the individual, the question of the place of the individual in society, the norms of his behavior. The absolutist state was directly interested in having all these questions resolved in the direction it wanted. Realizing the important socio-educational significance of literature and theater, it made a lot of efforts to put them at the service of its interests. His literary policy, as eloquently evidenced, for example, by the role of Richelieu in the “dispute about the Side”, pursued its main goal of placing the development of drama under state control, making the theater a platform for the propaganda of official morality, increasing its separation from folk roots and from the great elements. folk language. And absolutism, as Pushkin and Stendhal have already noted, achieves notable successes here. The aesthetics and artistic practice of classicism acquire a clearly estate imprint: only crowned and “high-born” characters are allowed on the tragic stage, and the “three unities” turn out to be a sharp line between the protagonists of the tragedy and the people; one of the basic rules is the observance of the so-called "decencies", which, as in life, play the role of a caste partition that separates the nobility from all other sections of the French population; in the speech of the tragic characters, elements of a precision-aristocratic jargon appear. All these features of the classic tragedy, already defined by Corneille, constitute those moments of its class limitation and narrowness, which, bringing it closer to the long-forgotten proper court dramaturgy of Scuderi, Boyer, T. Corneille and many others, were the object of cruel and completely fair democratic criticism. XVIII-XIX centuries

Exalting the stoic renunciation of personal interests by a person in the name of the interests of the state, the classic tragedy contributed to the establishment of one of the basic principles of the noble state: not the law, not the state for the person, but “the person for the law”, for the state. Appearing in various forms in Corneille and Racine, but always giving their tragedies a stoic beginning, the demand for self-denial was in part nothing more than a sublimated, idealized reflection of the existence of man and people for the law, an idealized expression of the demand to subordinate man and society to an absolutist state. Establishing the renunciation of the personal as an ideal, classicist tragedy actively helped absolutism to strengthen itself and exalt itself.

Noting these moments of contact between the ideological content of classic tragedies and the prevailing morality, they should by no means be identified. Absolutism declaratively gave state interests the character of universal significance, universal rationality and legality, identifying them with the good of the whole society. But between these declarations and the real policy of the noble state, whose main function was to keep the exploited masses in check, there was a deep divergence. A deep divergence also existed between the practice of absolutism and the ideals and illusions of the creators of classic tragedy.

The civic ideals of Corneille, formed during the period of the rise of the national self-consciousness of the French people, who fought for the unity and independence of their homeland, had a pronounced patriotic character. The ideal of the playwright was a truly national state, embodying the highest interests of the French people. This ideal was already clearly outlined in "Sid", where the royal power acts as a force that contributes to the resolution of the conflict between subjects, and the policy of the state meets the humane aspirations of individuals. Corneille does not dream of a state based on Machiavellian principles, as reactionary literary critics try to present it. On the contrary, the playwright's ideal is a powerful state, where the absolute power of the monarch rests on justice and, limiting freedom, does not come into antagonistic conflict with the interests of society and the individual. This ideal also served as the measure with which Corneille, and then Racine, approached ancient subjects, trying to find either its embodiment or showing a deviation from it.

During the period of creating his best tragedies, Corneille believed in the national mission of absolute monarchy, in the fact that, by its very essence, it really is a national representative of the highest interests of all sections of French society. However, this illusion of the poet was not only his personal delusion. During these epochs, “the fighting classes achieve such a balance of power that the state power for a time acquires a certain independence in relation to both classes as a seeming mediator between them. The appearance of independence of the absolutist state, supposedly standing above classes, rising above the narrow interests of individuals and estates and representing the highest interests of the whole society, was the basis on which the illusory idea of ​​Corneille and Racine arose about the national mission of the absolutist state.

In reality, however, there was an insurmountable contradiction between the absolute monarchy and society, which manifested itself already in the fact that the absolutist state more and more alienated itself from civil society, more and more opposed itself to the world of private relations. This "process of separation of political life from civil society", which took place as the medieval estates developed into the classes of bourgeois society, was completed by the first French revolution. At the same time, it completed the “bifurcation” of a person into homme and citoyen, reducing “a person”, on the one hand, to a member of civil society, to an egoistic, independent individual, on the other, to a citizen of the state, to a legal entity. But already in the 17th century, during the period of the powerful strengthening of French absolutism, this process came out very clearly: society and the individual were more and more “divided”, the state more and more sharply opposed itself to civil society, the person “as a member of the state” turned out to be opposed to himself as a private person.

The alienation of the absolutist state from civil society and the "bifurcation" of man into a citizen of the state and a private individual was precisely the soil on which the conflict of the Kornelev tragedy arose. In the clashes of the heroes of Corneille, in the cruel inner struggle they endure, the tragic contradictions between public and private, civic duty and passion, reason and feeling were deeply revealed. The incompleteness of the process of "bifurcation" is partly explained why, in the best tragedies of Corneille, these principles not only oppose, but also penetrate each other, so that duty becomes passion, and passion becomes duty.

The development of the contradiction between the absolute monarchy and civil society was inextricably linked with the strengthening of the noble state as an organ of class domination, unprecedented in France before, and the colossal intensification of the exploitation of the masses. Therefore, the main burden of this process fell on the shoulders of the French people, who endured all the horrors of primitive accumulation and centralized rent. The innumerable taxes of the absolutist state, the arbitrariness of the nobles, tax-farmers and tax collectors, the violence and robbery of the soldiers sent to stay to ensure the taxes levied, the barbaric cruel reprisals against the insurgent people - all this brought the broad masses to the utmost despair, tore thousands and thousands of peasants from the land, forced them to flee to the forests, to other provinces and beyond the borders of their homeland, turning them into beggars and vagabonds who roamed the country in droves, into a future army of labor deprived of shelter and food. It was here that the alienation of the absolutist state from society became the greatest tragedy that played out on lands watered with the sweat, tears and blood of the people.

Due to its narrowness, the Kornel theater reflected this tragedy not directly, but in its characteristic generalized, "ennobled" forms. But his great truth in life was that the essence of his conflicts, the cause of the suffering of his heroes was the "bifurcation" of society and man, the growing contradiction between the state and the world of private relations, which was the greatest tragedy for the most disadvantaged part of civil society - for the people. This is, above all, the realistic and critical (usually not deliberate, but objective) beginning of the best tragedies of Corneille. Pushkin's idea that the tragedy of Racine, despite its narrow form, reflected the fate of man, the fate of the people, can rightfully be extended to the major works of the founder of the French national theater.

The discrepancy between Corneille's ideals and reality, between his belief in the national mission of an absolutist state and the real politics of the noble monarchy, was too obvious to go unnoticed by the great artist. Absolutism could declare in the person of Richelieu that the monarchy rested on reasonable foundations. But Richelieu immediately added that the main pillar of the state is the armed force. And the entire 17th century - the great century of numerous and large-scale peasant and plebeian uprisings - showed a terrible picture of the use of this force against a people mercilessly exploited and tortured, but again and again rising to the liberation struggle. Corneille not only knew about these reprisals - he was a witness to at least one of the bloodiest atrocities of absolutism, his reprisals against the uprising of the "barefoot" that broke out in the poet's homeland, in Normandy. The poet did not rise to the revolutionary defense of the people. The historical limitations of Corneille's worldview did not allow him to understand the actions of the people, made him fear them. But it does not at all follow from this that Corneille was a completely orthodox poet, accepting absolute monarchy with all its crimes and completely indifferent to the fate of his native people, as some bourgeois literary critics tend to present. The grave suffering of the people, their anger and their struggle, the tragedy of the people, which was the true tragedy of the alienation of the absolutist state from civil society, implicitly nourished the realistic and critical beginning of his work. This is evidenced by the tragedy "Cinna" (1640), which sounded like a poet's appeal to the mercy of absolutism, which dealt with the uprising of the "barefoot" (1639). This is evidenced by the tragedy “Nycomedes”, which appeared during the Fronde, where the people are perceived as defenders of justice and freedom of their homeland. The unfairly forgotten prologue to The Golden Fleece (1659), where Corneille expresses an angry protest against the incessant wars waged by absolutism, and ardently defends the French people, robbed and tortured to the greater glory of the state, speaks of the same thing. Through the mouth of an allegorical character - France - the poet paints here a terrible picture of national disasters: deserted cities, burned villages, inhabitants devastated by the rampant soldiers of the king, the death and misfortune of thousands of people ... The state prospers, France says, but the people groan ... and the glory of the king placed a heavy burden on his subjects. These lines are worth thinking about. Although intertwined with words of flattery, they nevertheless speak eloquently of the fact that the spectacle of national disasters, the culprit of which the poet calls the monarchy here, undermined, scattered his faith in the absolutist state as the spokesman for the highest interests of all sections of French society.

Paphos was nourished by the rise of the national self-consciousness of the French people, and Corneille's faith in the national mission of absolutism, and the progressive aspects of the activity of French absolutism, which were strongest during the years of Richelieu's reign. But when in the 40s of the 17th century the absolutist state entered a period of temporary crisis, when during the years of the Fronde absolutism inflicted unprecedented reprisals on the rebellious peasant and plebeian masses, Corneille's faith in the national mission of absolutism could not but be shaken. Thus, life itself ceased to nourish that great social content on which the heroic, Kornelian tragedy was based. But without civic pathos - the basis of its power and organizing principle - the tragedy of Corneille is unthinkable. Its crisis in the early 1940s was historically logical.

The national character of the Corneille tragedy is clearly revealed in the fact that its development is connected not only with the history of French absolutism, but also with the suffering and struggle of the French people. This connection is of a complex indirect nature. But it exists, and without it it is impossible to understand either the power of the tragic pathos of the playwright's best works, or the crisis of his work.

The tragedy of Corneille reached its highest peak at the end of the most progressive period of French absolutism in the 17th century, during the years of the high rise of the national self-consciousness of the French people, who defended the sovereignty of their homeland in the struggle against the reactionary Habsburg empire. The short period from 1637 to 1640, when the best works of the playwright appeared, was at the same time a period of upsurge in the popular liberation movement: in 1636-1637. the uprising of the peasants covered about a quarter of the country's territory, in 1639 in Normandy, in the homeland of Corneille, a large uprising of the "barefoot" broke out. These concrete historical conditions explain both the heroic pathos and the tragic power of Corneille's best works. Belinsky correctly and expressively characterized the genius of Corneille as majestic and powerful, pointing to the "terrible inner strength ... pathos" of his tragedies.

All advanced culture of France in the first half of the 17th century. reflects and expresses the progressive tendencies of this historical period and the patriotic aspirations of the French people. Not only the best Kornelev tragedies, but also the paintings of Poussin and the ethics of Descartes are imbued with the pathos of rational creation and faith in the enormous possibilities of man, the pathos of striving for a great rational goal and the conscious subordination of this goal to the will of individual individuals. “... When a private person,” writes Descartes, “voluntarily combines his interest with the interests of his sovereign or his homeland, he must ... consider himself only as a very small part of the whole into which he enters, and must be afraid to go for them to certain death ... no more than letting a little blood out of your hand to make the rest of the body feel better.

But the demand for high self-sacrifice and self-denial, presented with such force to the individual by the best people of France, did not mean in their view the enslavement of man. On the contrary, it was perceived by them as such a socially reasonable restriction of the freedom of the individual, as the assertion of such generally significant reasonable boundaries, within which only the true greatness and freedom of the state and man are possible. That is why this restriction was directed not only against the arbitrariness of the individual, but also against the arbitrariness of the holders of political power, and, therefore, against the despotism of the state. Both Corneille and Descartes, while demanding heroic self-sacrifice from a person, at the same time conceive of the ideal state power not only as unlimited, but also as just. The philosopher believes that the ideal absolute monarch is, by its very nature, that person of a “great soul” who is put forward by him as an ideal and who, as you know, is in many ways similar to Cornell's heroes.

The unity of a strong will and a clear mind, which distinguishes the Corneille hero, determines all his behavior. If the hero of Corneille deviates from the ideal line of conduct, it is because he is mistaken, or because his human dignity is deeply offended.

A high sense of self-worth is also an important distinguishing feature of the Corneille hero. If above all he puts the public good and civic duty, then at the same time he highly values ​​his personal feelings and his blood and family ties, not seeing anything low and worthy of destruction in them. He is convinced only that all personal and family feelings should be, when circumstances so require, restrained and sacrificed to the highest good, and always finds the strength to conform his behavior with the ethical norms recognized by him.

Depending thus on the dictates of the hero's mind, neither the duty nor the personal feelings of the Corneille hero are, however, something cold and prudent. On the contrary, they so powerfully take possession of the consciousness and soul of the hero that the fulfillment of duty becomes his conscience, and fidelity to his passion - his duty.

All these qualities of the Kornelev hero give him majestic monumentality and raise him above the ordinary level of life, make him capable of extraordinary spiritual impulses and heroic deeds, regardless of whether he is driven by the pathos of civic, family or personal duty. But precisely because both civic duty and personal feelings and ties appear in the best tragedies of Corneille as great principles that deserve deep respect and are capable of powerfully capturing a person, their clash occurs with great force. The tragedy of the conflicts of the Kornel theater lies in the fact that the great principles collide in it with colossal force in irreconcilable antagonism, which can be removed only in the ideal (Cinna), but not in reality. Kornelev's "Horace" (1640) was the first French play, where the greatness of the patriotic deed and the state principle was asserted with great power in strictly classicistic forms, and at the same time, the tragedy of the alienation of the absolutist state from civil society, from the world of private relations was deeply revealed.

Creating his tragedy, Corneille starts from the material he found in the story of Titus Livius about the final episode of the war between Rome and Alba Longa. According to the narration of the Roman historian, the outcome of the struggle of these two cities for political primacy was decided in the battle of the three Horatii with the three Curiatii, the winner of which was the warrior put up by Rome. Alone, surviving in battle, Horace struck to death his own sister, who mourned her fiancé, who fell in battle, had to stand trial as a murderer and was acquitted as the savior of the freedom of Rome.

This episode attracted Corneille as a vivid example of the civil virtues of ancient Rome, the greatness of the soul and patriotism. The picture of the contradictions between the state and the family and the individual, looming in the story of Titus Livius, captured the creative imagination of the playwright just as imperiously and turned under his pen into a canvas of tremendous artistic power. In general, following the story of Livy, Corneille brought out of the scene the election of the combatants, the protest of the troops, the appeal to the oracle and the battle itself, and limited the scene to the walls of the Horatii house.

The conflict on which the tragedy is built was outlined extremely clearly. Each of the five main characters of the tragedy appeared connected by kinship and a feeling of friendship or love with an unwitting enemy of the freedom of his homeland, and as a son of his fatherland, as a citizen, he turned out to be opposed to himself as a private person. In other words, the contradictions between the state and the world of private relations appeared in tragedy in the classically clear form of the repeatedly repeated and richly varied antithesis of patriotic duty and private virtues. Feelings that are dear to every single person, uniting people and making their communication wonderful - love, friendship, family ties - all this must be sacrificed by the heroes of Corneille to a high and conscious patriotic duty. And it is precisely because they - friends, lovers, relatives - feel and understand the greatness, significance and beauty of not only the many-sided personal ties that unite them, but also the ties that unite people into a single state whole - that is why the heroes of Corneille realize the tragic necessity of the upcoming choice.

This necessity works its way through a series of accidents given by Corneille in the twists and turns of intrigue and perceived by his heroes as the vicissitudes of fate. Skillful composition is used by the playwright both to create dramatic tension and to develop the characterization of the characters in the tragedy. Already at the beginning of it, the poet depicts women experiencing bitter anxiety for their husband and lover, fighting in warring camps, for brothers and relatives opposing each other on the battlefield. As soon as the anxiety of Sabina and Camilla is replaced by the hope of a happy outcome for their families of the war with news of a truce, the choice of cities falls on the Horatii and Curiatii and, having flared up, the hope goes out, giving way to even greater despair; and as soon as it flares up again with a false light at the news that the troops did not allow the battle, it fades again, this time forever, when the oracle confirms the correctness of the choice made. So from the very beginning of the tragedy, fate throws its heroes from despair to hope and from hope to despair, before throwing them into the abyss of human grief. So already the exposition allows you to penetrate into the inner world of Kornelev's heroines.

But only when the action reaches a very high tension for the first time, at that extremely dramatic moment when the choice of Rome and Alba Longa becomes known, only then the colossal figures of Horace and Curiatium appear on the scene in full size. Without bowing their proud heads, courageously, with open eyes, they look into the face of fate and throw down a daring challenge to it. In vain do they conjure Sabina and Camilla, who appeared near them, like offended geniuses of the hearth, not to stain the holy bonds of kinship, marriage, love with blood - nothing can shake them in their decision once made to fulfill their high duty to their homeland. In defiance of fate, in defiance of themselves, they go towards death, and only one of them returns from the battlefield - Horace.

Proud, intoxicated by the glory of the winner, he is still ready to sacrifice everything to his homeland. And again, pushing brother and sister together and forming the second, climactic pinnacle of the tragedy, the curve of dramatic tension shoots up, then falls steeply down, and before the viewer's gaze stands no longer an impeccable hero, but a criminal who has stained himself with the murder of his sister.

In these two symmetrically (2nd and 4th acts) located peak points of the tragedy, when its heroes are subjected to the most severe trials, their characters are revealed most fully. These are people of different will and energy, different spiritual sensitivity and strength, and each of them experiences the trials that have fallen to them in their own way. The great merit of Kornelev's tragedy lies in the fact that, in a masterfully written gallery of images, it deeply reflected the various life manifestations of the main conflict of the tragedy.

With the greatest sharpness, the antagonistic beginnings are embodied in the images of Horace and his sister. In other images, these beginnings are softened in one way or another. So Curiatius, whose image stands in the geometric center of the gallery of images of the tragedy, is going through a difficult internal struggle, drawn both by his civic duty and his personal attachments. So old Horace, not inferior to his son in civic prowess, at the same time, at other times, is not alien to deep compassion for the fate of the younger generation. But at the same time, the character of the image is determined by its closest proximity to Horace the victor compared to other characters in the tragedy: the famous “Qu’il mourut” is the words of a father filled with high patriotism, ready to sacrifice the lives of all his sons for the sake of the freedom of the fatherland. These words to a large extent reinforce the high civic pathos of the work.

In addition to the old man Horace, three images of the tragedy deserve special attention: Horace the son, Camilla, and Curiatius standing between them. The most strong-willed and integral, but at the same time the most one-sided of them is Horace. At the very moment when the choice falls on him and his brothers, conjugal love, brotherly affection and friendship completely cease to exist for him. With one effort of his colossal will, he suppresses all these feelings in himself in order to quite consciously become only an instrument and weapon of Rome: Rome a choisi mon bras, je n "examine rien.

The courageous and stern "je ne vous connais plus" of Horace refers not only to the Curiat, but to everything that connected him with the family. From now on, all his thoughts, his whole being are imbued with one desire - to honorably fulfill his holy patriotic duty and at the same time achieve the highest personal glory, defend the honor of the Horatii. Duty to the motherland is for Horace not only an idea, but also a matter of honor, a true passion.

Patriotism, serving the public good is the essence of Horace, the most striking and strong feature of his nature. Thanks to this, he retains his integrity: not knowing the fluctuations between the ideals of public and private life, he triumphs over the bifurcation of his "I", asserting it as the dominance of the richest and most significant side of his nature. Thousands are ready to die in the battle for their homeland, Horace says with passionate conviction to his opponent, but only we are able to break the bonds of blood in the name of duty and sacrifice to the fatherland everything that is dear to us and for which we would be glad to give our own lives. Thus, in the image of Horace, the greatness of high patriotic duty and love for the motherland is powerfully affirmed.

The enormous significance of the beginning embodied in Horace determines the power and content of this image, which is more complex than it might seem at first glance. The greatness and valor of the hero are seen both in his actions and in his spiritual movements. In fulfilling his duty, he knows that he is sacrificing for the sake of the public good everything that was dear to him as a private person and thus turns his weapon against himself. But he recognizes only one way: win or die; moreover, he demands from Sabina and Camille that they meet the winner, whoever it turns out to be, not as a murderer who shed the blood of a loved one, but as a hero who managed to defend the freedom of his homeland.

But the constant and passionate readiness of Horace to serve the Roman state has its downside. Merging his will with the will of the state, Horace destroys the family man, relative and friend in himself. He not only suppresses all humane feelings in himself, but steps on them with the heavy foot of a soldier, cruelly demanding others to follow his example. This cruel side of his nature is especially clearly manifested in the murder of his own sister, whose suffering he not only does not understand, but does not recognize at all, considering them shameful. The valiant but cruel Horace in tragedy is opposed by the weaker Curiatius, in courage he is not much inferior to the chosen one of Rome. The duty of a patriot is as sacred a duty to him as it is to his adversary. But he cannot painlessly break all the threads that bind him to the world of private relations. Civic duty and personal feelings and affections live in him. However, the tragic situation puts him before the inexorable need to break the harmony of his inner world, to crush and destroy in himself one of the sides of his "I". Curiatius faces the same tragic alternatives as Horace. He must fight with his friend, oppose the brother of his beloved Camilla and the husband of his own sister. But heroically suppressing a private person in himself, he continues to keep friendship, love and brotherly affection in his soul. Consciously opposing himself to Horace, Curiatius, however, understands that it is his humanity that makes his fate deeply tragic. That is why, in response to Horatio's "je ne vous connais plus", he throws the full dignity of bitterness and pain "Je vous connais encore, et c" est qui me tue ".

The image of his sister Camilla is even more sharply opposed to Horace. A Roman woman, conscious of her patriotic duty, the sister of the warriors chosen by Rome, she passionately loves the unwitting enemy of her homeland and therefore has long been in the grip of painful contradictions. But gradually passion seizes her more and more, forcing her to see in Curiatia only her beloved. As the son of Alba Longa, he ceases to exist for her. And

Bad tendentiousness leads, as a rule, to a distortion of reality. Corneille the playwright had the objectivity of a truly great artist. Pushing his heroes together, he clearly saw the truth of those principles in the name of which they fought, suffered and died. The verbal duel between Horace and Curiatius, the scene in which Camilla opposes Horace as a heroic person, equal to him in willpower and in the strength of the pathos that drives her, are vivid examples of this.

But at the same time, Corneille was not an impartial contemplator of the changes taking place around him. The tragedy was written after the “controversy about the Side”, which forced Corneille to express his attitude towards the absolutist state more clearly. She appeared in 1640, after three years of reflection of the poet, and bears the stamp of deep maturity. In "Horace" Corneille's positive attitude towards the absolutist state is much more clearly expressed. Undoubtedly, the pressure of Richelieu's literary policy played a certain role in this, which the poet himself admits, dedicating his tragedy to the all-powerful cardinal. However, the role of influence on Corneille of the literary policy of absolutism should not be exaggerated - never has another great work been born only as a result of violent pressure from above. The solution to the problem should be sought deeper.

The course of history, which caused a reassessment and breakdown of old values ​​and a sharp promotion of new ethical values, demanded from Corneille, like from all his contemporaries, that he take a certain position. Responding to this demand, Corneille creates a truly patriotic tragedy in which the state appears as a great beginning, and civic duty is placed above all else. But if Corneille places above all the duty of man to the state, it is because he still believes in the national mission of absolutism. It is not the strength and heroism of the will - here they are equal - that allow Corneille to put Horace above Camille and justify him, despite the gravity of his crime, but the unequal life principles in whose name they act. The significance of these principles in the general system of moral values, the true essence of the good, in which the Kornel hero sees the goal of his aspirations and his happiness, is the second moment that, along with the strength or weakness of his will, determines not only his entire appearance, but also his attitude towards him. the playwright who created it, in the same way as not only willpower, but also its direction determines human activity in the eyes of Descartes. That is why, without removing the guilt of Horace, Corneille at the same time places him as a valiant servant of the state and defender of the independence of Rome.

Civil pathos and the tragic conflict "Horace" determined the main points of the strict classic form of the event and found their adequate embodiment in it.

The composition of the tragedy is subject to the principle of strict symmetry, sustained both in general and in individual parts of the work. So, for example, the first act of "Horace" opens with a dialogue of female characters, the second - with a dialogue of male characters. So the false news about the battle of Horace, which marks that moment in the development of the intrigue, after which the action begins to tend to the denouement, is reported in the third, that is, in the middle act of the tragedy.

The same principle of symmetry is observed in the number and grouping of actors. Two female characters - Camille and Sabina - are opposed by two male characters - Horace and Curiatius; at the same time, the son and daughter of Alba Longa are opposed to the Roman and the Roman woman.

The wide use of antithesis clearly expresses the struggle between two principles, on which the tragic conflict of the work is built, while strict symmetry expresses the disciplining principle characteristic of classicism, the desire for balance, the desire to contain this conflict within a clearly defined framework. The unity of form and content, inherent in the best tragedies of Corneille, stands out very clearly here.

Antithesis is only one of the manifestations of dualism, which is generally characteristic of the classic theater. The alienation of the state from civil society underlying it was, at the same time, that concrete historical soil on which a clear distinction of genres arose into high and low, into tragedy and comedy opposing each other, one of which depicts the political sphere of society, the other - the world of his private relations.

The limitation of the action of tragedy to the sphere of political life significantly narrowed the visual possibilities of the Kornel theater. It closed access to the tragic stage for the people, allowing them only representatives of the ruling class; it deprived Corneille's tragedy of the national "Falstaffian" background and made its hero lonely; it determined the one-sidedness of the Corneille hero, the playwright's concentration on the spiritual appearance of the characters, the departure of the high genre from the concrete and material, and other narrow moments of the classic tragedy, which, as shown above, were affirmed under the influence of the literary policy of absolutism.

However, at the same time, it must be emphasized that the alienation of the absolutist state from society, which developed in France in its classical forms, also determined the deep historical, political and ethical content of the conflicts on which the French tragedy is built.

These qualities of the Corneille tragedy find their expression in its sublime style, and in the refinement of the characters depicted in it, and in its peculiar interpretation of antiquity.

The courageous chased verse of Corneille perfectly expresses the mighty spirit of his heroes, and their clear thought requires clear, concise forms of verse and language.

The tendency to idealize reality, inherent in the Kornel theater, was also clearly reflected in the playwright's peculiar interpretation of antiquity. It was in this form that this trend was already noted by the most educated and insightful contemporaries of the playwright.

The works of K., written in 1636-1643, are usually attributed to the “first manner”. Among them are "Sid", "Horace", "Cinna", "The Death of Pompey", some other works, including "The Liar" ("Le menteur", 1643) - the first French moral comedy written based on the comedy of the Spanish playwright Alarcon "The Doubtful Truth".

The researchers of these works distinguish the following features of the "first manner" of K.: the chanting of civic heroism and greatness; glorification of the ideal, reasonable state power; depiction of the struggle of duty with passions and curbing them with reason; a sympathetic portrayal of the organizing role of the monarchy; giving political themes an oratorical form; clarity, dynamism, graphic clarity of the plot; special attention to the word, verse, in which one can feel some influence of baroque precision.

In the period of the "first manner" Corneille. develops a new understanding of the category of the tragic. Aristotle, who was the greatest authority for the classicists, associated the tragic with catharsis (“catharsis” is a hard-to-translate word, usually understood as “purification through fear and compassion”). K. puts at the heart of the tragic not a feeling of fear and compassion, but a feeling of admiration that embraces the viewer at the sight of noble, idealized heroes who always know how to subordinate their passions to the requirements of duty, state necessity. And indeed, Rodrigo, Jimena, Horace, Curiatius, Augustus, Pompey's widow Cornelia and Julius Caesar (from the tragedy "The Death of Pompey") delight the viewer with the power of their mind, the nobility of the soul, the ability, despising the personal, to subordinate their lives to the public interest. The creation of majestic characters, the description of their sublime motives - the main achievement of K. of the period of the "first manner".

10. Poetics of the tragedies of Corneille "second manner"

From the beginning of the 1640s, features of the Baroque appear more and more clearly in the tragedies of Corneille (this period is sometimes called Corneille's "second manner"). Observing outwardly the rules of classicist poetics (turning to ancient material and lofty heroes, preserving the three unities), Corneille actually blows them up from the inside. From the vast arsenal of events and heroes of ancient history, he chooses the least known, which are easier to transform and rethink. He is attracted to complicated plots with intricate initial dramatic situations that require a detailed explanation in the opening monologues. Thus, the formal unity of time (24 hours) comes into conflict with the real plot content of the play. Corneille now resolves this contradiction in a different way than in The Side - the exposition, taken out of the scope of the stage action, grows disproportionately due to the story of long-past events. Thus, the word gradually becomes the main expressive and pictorial means, gradually crowding out external action. This is especially noticeable in Rodogun (1644) and Heraclius (1647).

The plot situations and turns in the fate of the heroes of Corneille's later tragedies are determined not by generalized typical, "reasonable", but out of the ordinary, exceptional, irrational circumstances, often by a game of chance - the substitution of children growing up under a false name in the family of an enemy and a usurper of the throne ("Heraclius ”), the rivalry of twins, whose rights are decided by the secret of birthright hidden from everyone (“Rodogun”). Corneille is now willingly turning to dynastic upheavals, motives for the usurpation of power, cruel and unnatural enmity of close relatives. If in his classicist tragedies strong people morally dominated circumstances, even at the cost of life and happiness, now they become the plaything of unknown blind forces, including their own, blinding their passions. The worldview characteristic of the Baroque man pushes back the classically strict "reasonable" consciousness, and this is reflected in all links of the poetic system. Corneille's heroes still retain willpower and "greatness of the soul" (as he himself wrote about them), but this will and greatness no longer serve the common good, not a high moral idea, but ambitious aspirations, a thirst for power, revenge, often turn into immoralism . Accordingly, the center of dramatic interest shifts from the internal spiritual struggle of the characters to the external struggle. The psychological tension gives way to the tension of plot development.

The ideological and artistic structure of Corneille's tragedies of the "second manner" reflects the atmosphere of political adventurism, intrigue, and the growing chaos of political life, which in the late 1640s resulted in open resistance to royal power - the Fronde. The idealized idea of ​​the state as a defender of the common good is replaced by a frank declaration of political self-will, the struggle for the individual interests of certain aristocratic groups. A significant role in them was played by women fronders (who are against the king, but aristocrats), active participants and inspirers of the struggle. In Corneille's plays, the type of an imperious, ambitious heroine appears more and more often, directing the actions of the people around her with her will.

Along with the general typical features of the era, contemporaries were inclined to see in the tragedies of Corneille a direct reflection of the events of the Fronde. So, in the tragedy “Nycomedes” (1651), they saw the story of the arrest and release of the famous commander, Prince Conde, who led the so-called “Fronde of Princes”, and in the characters of the play - Anna of Austria, the minister Cardinal Mazarin and others. The external arrangement of the characters seemed to give rise to such comparisons, however, in terms of its ideological issues, "Nycomedes" goes far beyond the limits of a simple "play with a key." The political reality of the era is reflected in the play not directly, but indirectly, through the prism of history. It raises such important general political problems as the relationship between great and small powers, "puppet" sovereigns who betray the interests of their country for the sake of personal power and security, the perfidious diplomacy of Rome in the states subject to it. It is noteworthy that this is the only tragedy of Corneille where the fate of the hero is decided by the uprising of the people (although it is not shown on the stage, but its echoes are heard in the excited remarks of the characters). Masterfully outlined characters, well-aimed lapidary formulas of political wisdom, compact and dynamic action distinguish this tragedy from other works of Corneille of this period and return to the dramatic principles of his classical plays.

In the same years and under the influence of the same events, the "heroic comedy" Don Sancho of Aragon (1650) was written, marked by a peculiar democratism. Although her hero, the imaginary son of a simple fisherman Carlos, who accomplished military exploits and captivated the heart of the Castilian princess, in the final turns out to be the heir to the Aragonese throne, throughout the comedy he considers himself a plebeian, is not ashamed of his origin, asserts personal dignity as opposed to the class arrogance of his rivals - Castilian giants. The innovations introduced into this play, Corneille tried to substantiate theoretically in the dedication. Demanding a revision of the traditional hierarchy of dramatic genres, he proposes to create a comedy with high characters of royal origin, while in tragedy to show people of the middle class, who "are more capable of arousing fear and compassion in us than the fall of monarchs, with whom we have nothing in common." This bold statement anticipates exactly one hundred years the reform of dramatic genres proposed by the educator Diderot.

"Nycomedes" and "Don Sancho of Aragon" mark the last rise of Corneille's work. At that time, he was recognized as the first playwright of France, his plays, starting from 1644, were staged in the best theater troupe of the capital - the Burgundy Hotel; in 1647 he was elected a member of the French Academy. However, the tragedy Pertarite (1652), which follows Nycomedes, fails, painfully received by Corneille. He again leaves for Rouen with the intention of moving away from dramaturgy and theater. For seven years he has been living away from the capital, translating Latin religious poetry. The return to dramatic art and theatrical life of the capital (the tragedy Oedipus, 1659) does not bring anything new either to his work or to the development of the French theater. The ten tragedies written between 1659-1674, mostly on historical subjects, no longer raise the big moral and social questions dictated by the times. A new, younger generation in the person of Racine was called upon to raise these problems. The exclusivity of the characters and the tension of the situations are replaced in the later tragedies of Corneille by the lethargy of plots and characters, which did not escape the attention of critics. The authority of Corneille is preserved mainly among the people of his generation, former Frondeurs, who are reluctant to accept new trends and tastes of the court of Louis XIV. After the resounding success of Racine's Andromache, which coincided with the failure of his next tragedy, the aging playwright was forced to stage his plays no longer in the Burgundy hotel, but in the more modest troupe of Molière. An unsuccessful competition with Racine in writing a play on the same plot (Titus and Berenice, 1670) finally confirmed his creative decline. For the last ten years of his life, he no longer wrote anything for the theater. These years are overshadowed by material deprivation and the gradual oblivion of his merits.

The originality of the ideological and artistic structure of Corneille's tragedies, especially the "second manner", was reflected in his theoretical writings - three "Discourses on Dramatic Poetry" (1663), in "Analysis" and the prefaces that preceded each play. According to Corneille, the theme of the tragedy should be political events of great national importance, while the love theme should be given a secondary place. Corneille consistently followed this principle in most of his plays. The plot of the tragedy should not be plausible, because it rises above the everyday and ordinary, depicts extraordinary people who can show their greatness only in exceptional situations. Corneille seeks to justify the deviation from plausibility, as the classical doctrine understood it, by fidelity to "truth", i.e., a really confirmed historical fact, which, by virtue of its reliability, contains an internal necessity, a pattern. In other words, reality seems to Corneille richer and more complex than its generalized abstract interpretation according to the laws of rationalistic consciousness.

These views of Corneille are polemically directed against the basic foundations of the classicist doctrine and, despite numerous references to Aristotle, sharply distinguish his position among modern theorists. They caused a sharp rejection on the part of the representatives of mature classicism - Boileau and Racine.

Sid".

A real triumph for Corneille was brought by the tragicomedy The Cid (1637), which opened a new era in the history of French theater and drama. In this tragedy, Corneille for the first time embodied the main moral and philosophical problem of French classicism - the struggle between duty and feeling, which became the focus of dramatic interest.

When creating the tragicomedy, Corneille turned not to ancient sources, but to the play of the modern Spanish playwright Guillen de Castro "The Youth of Cid" (1618). The romantic love story of the Spanish knight, the future hero of the reconquista, Rodrigo Diaz, for Dona Jimena, the daughter of the count he killed in a duel, served as the basis for a tense moral conflict. The mutual feeling of a young couple, at the beginning not overshadowed by anything, comes into conflict with the feudal notion tribal honor: Rodrigo is obliged to avenge the undeserved insult - a slap in the face inflicted on his old father, and challenge the father of his beloved to a duel. This decision is made after shower. wrestling (famous stanzas).

The murder in a duel of Count Gormas suffers ext. dramatic conflict in the soul of Chimena: now she, too, finds herself in the same torment. solving the problem of the dog and feelings (obliged to avenge her father and demand the execution of Rodrigo). This one is symmetrical. temper. confl. in both cases it is decided in the spirit of moral philosophy. the concept of "free will" - reasonable duty triumphs over "unreasonable" passion. Outwardly, in their behavior, the heroes strictly follow this principle. But! not only external. Artistic the truth calls into question the distraction. moral blueprint. For K-la, the duty of family honor is not able to balance the strength of the living feeling of 2 lovers. This duty is not an unconditionally “reasonable” beginning: the source of the conflict was not the confrontation of 2 equal high ideas, but only the offended vanity of Count Gormas, bypassed by royal favor: the king chose his son not his educator, but father Rodrigo. The act of the individual. self-will, envy of an ambitious man => tragic. collision and the destruction of the happiness of a young couple. K-l not could recognize the absolute. the value of this debt: despite their actions, the characters continue to love each other.

Psychological, ideological and plot resolution of the conflict is carried out by introducing into the play a superpersonal principle, a higher duty, before which both love and family honor are forced to bow. A turn in the fate of the heroes is defined as a patriot. the feat of Rodrigo, who heroically fought with the army of the Moors and saved his country. This motif introduces true morals into the play. the measure of things and at the same time serves as an impetus for a successful denouement: national the hero is placed above ordinary legal norms, above ordinary judgment and punishment. Just as he had previously sacrificed feeling to feudal debt, so now this debt recedes before a higher state. beginning.

Also, in a nutshell:

"Sid" starts rapidly. Almost no exposure. A cloudless start is charged internally. voltage. H. is full of forebodings.

The hero of the Kornelev tragedy, for example, Rodrigo, is depicted as growing before our eyes. From an unknown young man, he turns into a fearless warrior and a skilled commander. The glory of R. is the work of his hands, and is not inherited. In this sense, he is far from the feud. traditions and is the heir of the Renaissance.

For K-l as a representative of the culture of the 17th century. characterized by a keen interest in human thought. A person acts with him after deep reflection. FROM knowledge belongs to man, not to god. Humanism!

Exceptional importance in the dramaturgy of K-l acquires principle of intention before action. Already in The Side, the monologues of R. and H. attract attention in this regard: the characters independently discuss the situation that has developed as a result of the insult that Count Gormas inflicts on R.'s father. R. feels obligated to avenge Don D., but does not want to lose X either. finally decides to challenge the count to a duel.

Of great importance for K-l was the discussion of the so-called. "3 unities" in dramaturgy. [Vannik: Strives to concentrate as much as possible. action both in space and in time. rel. But not strictly!: Ed-in places: not a palace, but a city. K-l follows ed-you, but not dogmatically.] The principle of "single space" reduced spaces. the length of the image. The principle of “unity of time” cut off the future and the past, closed the depicted within the boundaries of the “today”. The principle of "single action" reduced the number of events and actions to the limit. In K-l's projects, external action often played a relatively large role. But for the playwright, the rule of "3 unities" was not a simple convention, which he was forced to reluctantly obey. He used those ext. opportunities, to-rye were enclosed in this aesthetic. rule. The struggle with the predominant image of the outside world assumed more detailed disclosure of the human soul, which is very important. a step forward in art. development.

The human soul seemed to K-lu as if more voluminous and capacious. It opened a variety of feelings, desires. Rodrigo, Ximena, Infanta are not limited in "Side" to one passion, which would completely own each of them. H., like R., combines both love for R. and the thought of his family honor. Family and patriot. Duty for R. is not sober dictates of the mind, but above all the irresistible call of the heart.

Humanist. K-l's tendencies are combined in his mind with the recognition of kings. authorities as the most authoritative societies. the forces of modernity. Motives aimed at the approval of the historical. absolute merit. monarchies, sound with particular force in the tragedies created by Corneille in the early 1640s. True, these motives are not the only ones in K-l's tragedies. With them in 1x tragedies of the playwright suck. the theme of disobedience, rebellion. Incidentally, the image of King Don Ferdinand is not quite appropriate. ideal of the monarchy :p

As for "Sid", then in this project the image of an independent, proud center. the character is not softened in any way; the image of Rodrigo, who organized resistance to the conquerors independently of the king, rather spoke of the opposite. But "Sid" was not without reason rejected by Richelieu. A whole campaign was undertaken against the play, which lasted 2 years, a number of critical articles, polemics, were brought down on it. notes written by Mere, Georges Scuderi, Claveret and others.

(See next ticket)

Summary:

The governess brings dona Jimena good news: of the two young nobles in love with her - Don Rodrigo and Don Sancho - Jimena's father, Count Gormas, wants to have the first son-in-law; namely, the feelings and thoughts of the girl are given to Don Rodrigo. In the same Rodrigo has long been ardently in love with a friend of Jimena, the daughter of the Castilian king dona Urraca. But she is a slave to her high position: her duty tells her to make her chosen one only an equal by birth - a king or prince of the blood. In order to end the suffering caused by her obviously insatiable passion, the Infanta did everything so that fiery love would bind Rodrigo and Jimena. Her efforts were successful, and now Doña Urraca cannot wait for the wedding day, after which the last sparks of hope must die out in her heart, and she will be able to rise in spirit. Fathers R. and X. - Don Diego and Count Gormas - glorious grandees and faithful servants of the king. But if the count is still the most reliable support of the Castilian throne, the time of the great deeds of Don D. is already behind - in his years he can no longer lead Christian regiments on campaigns against the infidels. When King Ferdinand faced the question of choosing a mentor for his son, he gave preference to the experienced Don Diego, which involuntarily put the friendship of 2 nobles to the test. Count Gormas considered the choice of the sovereign unfair, Don D. - on the contrary.)) Word for word, and arguments about the merits of one and the other grandee turn into a dispute, and then into a quarrel. Mutual insults pour in, and in the end the count gives Don D. a slap in the face; he draws his sword. The enemy easily knocks her out of the weakened hands of Don D., but does not continue the fight, because for him, the glorious Count G., it would be the greatest shame to stab a decrepit, defenseless old man. The deadly insult inflicted on Don D. can only be washed away by the blood of the offender. Therefore, he orders his son to challenge the count to a mortal battle. Rodrigo is in disarray - because he has to raise his hand against the father of his beloved. Love and filial duty are desperately fighting in his soul, but one way or another, Rodrigo decides, even life with his beloved wife will be an endless shame for him if his father remains unavenged. King F. is angry with the unworthy act of the count, but the arrogant nobleman, for whom honor is above all else in the world, refuses to obey the sovereign and apologize to D. No matter how events develop further, none of the possible outcomes bode well for Jimena: if in a duel Rodrigo will perish, her happiness will perish with him; if the young man prevails, an alliance with the murderer of her father will become impossible for her; well, if the duel does not take place, R. will be disgraced and will lose the right to be called a Castilian nobleman.

The count fell at the hands of the young Don Rodrigo. As soon as the news of this reaches the palace, a sobbing Jimena appears before Don F. and on her knees begs him for retribution for the killer; only death can be such a reward. Don D. retorts that winning a duel of honor cannot be equated with murder. The king listens favorably to both and proclaims his decision: Rodrigo will be judged.

R. comes to the house of Count G., who was killed by him, ready to appear before the inexorable judge - Jimena. The teacher H. Elvira, who met him, is frightened: after all, H. may not return home alone, and if his companions see him at her house, a shadow will fall on the girl’s honor. R. hides.

Indeed, H. comes accompanied by Don Sancho, who is in love with her, and offers himself as an instrument of retaliation against the killer. H. does not agree with his proposal. Left alone with the teacher, H. confesses that he still loves R., cannot imagine life without him; and, since it is her duty to condemn the murderer of her father to execution, she intends, having avenged herself, to descend into the coffin after her beloved. R. hears these words and comes out of hiding. He holds out a sword to H. and begs her to bring judgment upon him with her hand. But H. drives R. away, promising that he will do everything so that the killer pays for what he has done with his life, although in his heart he hopes that nothing will work out for her.

Don D. is unspeakably glad that the stain of shame has been washed away from him.

It is equally impossible for Ryu to change his love for H., nor to unite fate with his beloved; All that remains is to call for death. He leads a detachment of daredevils and repels the army of the Moors.

The outing of the detachment led by R. brings the Castilians a brilliant victory: the infidels flee, two Moorish kings are captured by the hand of a young commander. Everyone in the capital praises R. except H.

The Infanta persuades X. to give up revenge: R. is the stronghold and shield of Castile. But H. must do her duty(

F. is immensely admired by the feat of R. Even royal power is not enough to adequately thank the brave man, and F. decides to use the hint given to him by the captive kings of the Moors: in conversations with the king, they called Rodrigo Cid - master, ruler. From now on, R. will be called by this name, and his name alone will start to tremble Granada and Toledo.

Despite the honors rendered to R., H. falls at the feet of the sovereign and begs for revenge. F., suspecting that the girl loves the one whose death she asks, wants to check her feelings: with a sad look, he tells H. that R. died of his wounds. H. turns deathly pale, but as soon as he finds out that R. is actually alive and well, he justifies his weakness by saying that if the murderer of her father died at the hands of the Moors, this would not wash away her shame; allegedly she was afraid of the fact that now she is deprived of the opportunity to take revenge.

As soon as the king has forgiven R., H. announces that whoever defeats the murderer of the count in a duel will become her husband. Don Sancho, in love with H., immediately volunteers to fight R. The King is not too pleased that the life of the most faithful defender of the throne is not in danger on the battlefield, but he allows the duel, setting the condition that no matter who comes out victorious , he will get the hand of X.

R. comes to H. to say goodbye. She wonders if Don Sancho is really strong enough to defeat him. The young man replies that he is not going to battle, but to execution, in order to wash away the stain of shame from the honor of Kh. with his blood; he did not allow himself to be killed in battle with the Moors: then he fought for the fatherland and the state, now it is a completely different case.

Not wanting R.'s death, H. first resorts to a far-fetched argument - he cannot fall at the hands of Don Sancho, since this will damage his fame, while she, H., is more comfortable to realize that her father was killed by one of the most glorious knights of Castile - but in the end asks R. to win so that she does not marry the unloved.

Confusion grows in H.'s soul: she is afraid to think that R. will die, and she herself will have to become Don Sancho's wife, but the thought of what will happen if R. remains the battlefield does not bring her relief.

H.'s thoughts are interrupted by Don Sancho, who appears before her with a drawn sword and starts talking about the fight that has just ended. But H. does not allow him to say even two words, believing that Don Sancho will now begin to brag about his victory. Hurrying to the king, she asks him to have mercy and not force her to go to the crown with Don Sancho - it’s better for the winner to take all her property, and she herself will go to the monastery.

In vain H. did not listen to Don Sancho; now she learns that, as soon as the duel began, R. knocked the sword out of the hands of the enemy, but did not want to kill the one who was ready to die for the sake of X .. The king proclaims that the duel, albeit short and not bloody, washed away the stain of shame from her , and solemnly hands H. the hand of R.

Jimena no longer hides her love for Rodrigo, but still, even now she cannot become the wife of her father's killer. Then the wise King Ferdinand, not wanting to inflict violence on the girl's feelings, offers to rely on the healing property of time - appoints a wedding in a year. During this time, the wound on the soul of Jimena will heal, while Rodrigo will accomplish many feats for the glory of Castile and its king. ©. J

12."Horace"

Summary:

First - a dedication to Cardinal Richelieu. This is a gift to a patron. The plot is from the legends of antiquity. "It is unlikely that in the traditions of antiquity there is an example of greater nobility." All sorts of self-abasement about the fact that everything could be stated with great grace. He owes everything to the cardinal: “you gave art a noble purpose, because instead of pleasing the people ... you gave us the opportunity to please you and entertain you; by promoting your entertainment, we promote your health, which is necessary for the state.

Plot. Rome and Alba went to war with each other. Now that the Albanian army stands at the walls of Rome, the decisive battle must be played out. Sabina is the wife of the noble Roman Horace. But she is also the sister of three Albanians, among them Curiatius. Therefore, she is terribly worried. Horace's sister Camilla is also suffering. Her fiancé Curiatius is on the side of the Albanians, and her brother is a Roman. A friend of Camilla and Sabina, Julia, insists that her situation is easier, because she only exchanged an oath of allegiance, and this does not mean anything when the homeland is in danger. Camilla turned to a Greek soothsayer for help in order to find out her fate. He predicted that the dispute between Alba and Rome the next day would end in peace, and she would unite with Curiatius. But on the same day she had a dream with a brutal massacre and a pile of dead bodies.

When the armies met, the leader of the Albans turned to the Roman king Tullus about the need to avoid fratricide, because the Romans and Albanians are related by family ties. It is necessary to resolve the dispute by a duel of three fighters from each side. The city whose warriors lose will become the subject of the victor. The Romans accepted the offer. A temporary truce was established between the cities, until the choice of warriors. Curiatius visited Camilla. The girl thought that for the sake of love for her, the noble Albanian gave up his duty to his homeland, and in no way condemns the lover.

The Romans chose the three Horatii brothers. Curiatius envies them because they will glorify their homeland or lay down their heads for it. But he regrets that in any case he will have to mourn either the humiliated Alba or the dead friends. Horace is incomprehensible, because the one who died in the name of the country is worthy not of regret, but of admiration. At this time, the Albanian warrior brings the news that the Curiatii brothers will oppose the Horatii. Curiatius is proud of the choice of his compatriots, but at the same time he would like to avoid a duel, since he will have to fight with the bride's brother and sister's husband. Horace, on the contrary, is glad, because it is a great honor to fight for the fatherland, but if at the same time the bonds of blood and affection are overcome, then this glory is perfect.

Camilla tries to talk Curiatius out of the fight and almost succeeds, but at the last moment Curiatius changes his mind. Sabina, unlike Camille, does not think to dissuade Horace. She only wants the duel not to become fratricidal. To do this, she needs to die, because with her death the family ties that bind Horace and Curiatius will be interrupted.

Horace's father appears. He commands his son and son-in-law to do their duty. Sabina is trying to overcome spiritual grief, convincing herself that the main thing is not who brought death to whom, but in the name of what; she inspires herself that she will remain a faithful sister if her brother kills her husband, or a loving wife if her husband hits her brother. But in vain: Sabina understands that in the winner she will see the killer of a person dear to her. Sabina's sorrowful thoughts are interrupted by Julia, who brought her news from the battlefield: as soon as six fighters went out to meet each other, a murmur swept through both armies: both the Romans and the Albanians were outraged by the decision of their leaders, who condemned the Horatii with the Curiatii to a duel. King Tull announced that sacrifices should be made in order to find out from the entrails of animals whether the choice is pleasing to the gods.

Hope returns to the hearts of Sabina and Camilla, but old Horace informs them that, by the will of the gods, their brothers have entered into battle with each other. Seeing the grief this news plunged the women into and wanting to strengthen their hearts, the father of heroes starts talking about the greatness of the lot of his sons, performing feats for the glory of Rome; Roman women - Camilla by birth, Sabina by virtue of marriage - both of them at this moment should think only about the triumph of their homeland.

Julia tells her friends that the two sons of old Horace fell from the swords of the Albans, and Sabina's husband fled; Julia did not wait for the outcome of the duel, for it is obvious.

Julia's story strikes old Horace. He swears that the third son, whose cowardice has covered the hitherto honorable name of Horatii with indelible shame, will die by his own hand.

To old Horace comes as a messenger from the king Valery, a noble youth whose love was rejected by Camilla. He starts talking about Horace and, to his surprise, hears terrible curses from the old man against the one who saved Rome from shame. Valery talks about what Julia did not see: Horace's flight was a trick - running away from the wounded and tired Curiatii, Horace thus separated them and fought with each in turn, one on one, until all three fell from his sword.

Old Horace triumphs, he is full of pride for his sons. Camilla, struck by the news of the death of her lover, is consoled by her father, appealing to reason and fortitude. But Camilla is inconsolable. Her happiness is sacrificed to the greatness of Rome, and she is required to hide grief and rejoice. No, this will not happen, Camilla decides, and when Horace appears before her, expecting praise from her sister for her feat, he unleashes a stream of curses on him for killing the groom. Horace could not imagine that in the hour of the triumph of the fatherland one could be killed after the death of the enemy; when Camilla begins to call curses on Rome, his patience comes to an end - with the sword with which her fiancé was killed shortly before, he stabs his sister.

Horace is sure that he did the right thing - Camilla ceased to be his sister and daughter to her father at the moment when she cursed her homeland. Sabina asks her husband to stab her too, for she too, contrary to her duty, mourns for the dead brothers, envious of the fate of Camilla, whom death delivered from grief and united with her beloved. Horace of great difficulty is not to fulfill the request of his wife.

Old Horace does not condemn his son for the murder of his sister - having betrayed Rome with her soul, she deserved death; but by the execution of Camilla, Horace ruined his honor and glory. The son agrees with his father and asks him to pronounce the verdict - whatever it may be, Horace agrees with him in advance. In order to honor the father of the heroes, King Tull arrives at the house of the Horatii. He praises the valor of old Horace, whose spirit was not broken by the death of three children, and speaks with regret of the villainy that overshadowed the feat of Horace. But the fact that this villainy should be punished is out of the question until Valery takes the floor.

Calling on royal justice, Valery speaks of Camilla's innocence, who succumbed to a natural impulse of despair and anger, that Horace not only killed her for no reason, but also outraged the will of the gods, blasphemously desecrating the glory bestowed by them.

Horace asks the king for permission to pierce himself with his own sword, but not to atone for the death of his sister, for she deserved it, but in the name of saving her honor and the glory of the savior of Rome. Wise Tull listens to Sabina too. She asks to be executed, which will mean the execution of Horace, since husband and wife are one; her death - which Sabina seeks as deliverance, unable to either love the murderer of her brothers or reject him - will quench the wrath of the gods, while her husband will be able to continue to bring glory to the fatherland. Tull pronounced a verdict: although Horace committed a crime usually punishable by death, he is one of those heroes who serve as a reliable stronghold for their sovereigns; these heroes are not subject to the general law, and therefore Horace will live, and further jealous of the glory of Rome.

Horace was written after the Cid controversy, when an offended Corneille left for Rouen and then returned to Paris. The tragedy was staged in 1640. A separate edition Horace» came out in 1641. Corneille dedicated it to Cardinal Richelieu. In the foreshadowed tragedy "Review" Corneille indicated the source from which he drew his plot and also responded to criticisms.

The stoic renunciation of personal feelings in this tragedy is done in the name of the state idea. Debt acquires a superpersonal significance. The glory and greatness of the motherland form a new patriotic heroism. The state is considered by Corneille as the highest generalized principle, requiring unquestioning obedience from the individual in the name of the common good.

Scene selection. The plot was based on a legend told by the Roman historian Titus Livius. The war between Rome and Alba Longa ended in a duel between the three twin brothers Horace and their three twins of the same age, the Curiatii. When, having defeated everyone, the only surviving Horace returned from the battlefield, his sister, the bride of one of the Curiatii, greeted the winner with reproaches. The indignant young man, drawing a sword, pierced his sister with it and exclaimed: “Go to the groom with your untimely love, since you forgot about the fallen brothers and about the living, forgot about the fatherland.” Severe punishment was expected for the murder of Horace, but the people justified him, admiring the valiant feat in protecting the people. Corneille changed the ending of this story and introduced it into a tragedy image of Sabina, as a result, the ancient tradition received a new sound.

In the minds of the people of the 17th century, the Romans are the embodiment of civic prowess. Corneille turned to this story to reflect the moral principles of his own time.

The antithesis of the private-state. A technique characteristic of Corneille's dramatic technique is the opposition of two positions, which are realized not in the actions of the characters, but in their words. Horace and Curiatius express their point of view on the public debt. Horace is proud of the exorbitance of the demand presented to him, since it is common to fight the enemy for the homeland, and in order to overcome the kindred feeling, greatness of spirit is required. He sees this as a manifestation of the state's highest confidence in the citizen, who is called upon to protect him. Curiatius, although he submits to the choice, internally protests, he does not want to suppress the human principles in himself - friendship and love (“I am not a Roman, and therefore everything human in me has not completely died out”). Horace measures the dignity of a person by how he performs public duty. He almost denies the personal in man. Curiatius measures the dignity of a person by his fidelity to human feelings, although he recognizes the importance of duty to the state.

The characters' assessment of both the situation itself and their own behavior is fundamentally different. The idea of ​​blind submission of the individual to the will of the state, embodied in Horace, comes into conflict with humanistic ethics, with the recognition of natural human feelings in the person of Curiatius. This conflict does not receive a favorable resolution.

After the duel between Horace and Curiatia, the personal and the state collide with such force that it leads to a catastrophe. Horace killed his rivals. Camilla, who has lost her fiancé, must praise the winner, but her feelings prevail over her duty. Camille rejects the inhuman public good. Horace kills her and thereby crosses out his exploits.

The antithesis of the state and the personal remained in history even after the action of the tragedy, in which it was not removed. Camilla's curse on Rome is built on the rhetorical effect of "prophecy" of the collapse of the Roman Empire. The meaning of the prophecy brings us back to the tragic dilemma of the play: the harsh suppression of everything human, which was the source of power, will someday be the source of the death of Rome.

A new look at the problems of history was put forward by Corneille in tragedy. Corneille combined the principles of classicism with baroque expression. Corneille's action is stormy, although it is subject to a rational principle. Corneille is called by various researchers both a baroque author with elements of classicism and a classic with strong baroque elements.

Poetics of classicism in tragedy. More meets the requirements of classicism than "Sid". The external action is reduced to a minimum, it begins at the moment when the dramatic conflict is already evident and its development is taking place. Dramatic interest is centered around three characters - Horace, Camilla and Curiatius. Attention is also drawn to the symmetrical arrangement of the characters, corresponding to their family relations and origin (Romans - Albanians). The positions of the characters are opposite. The reception of antithesis covers the entire artistic structure of the play.

Controversy with the abbot D'Aubignac. In the "Review" Corneille argues about the ending of the tragedy. Corneille diverged somewhat from the requirements of the classic theory. The abbot remarked, referring to the rule of "decency", that in the theater one should not show how a brother stabs his sister to death, although this corresponds to the story. To save moral feelings, the abbot suggested this option: Camilla, in despair, herself throws herself on her brother's sword, and Horace cannot be blamed for her death. In addition, according to D'Aubignac, Valery's behavior in the last act runs counter to ideas of nobility and knightly honor.

Corneille in the "Review" he answered the objections. He rejected the abbot's assumptions about the death of Camilla, since he considered such an end too implausible. Regarding the behavior of Valery, Cornel said that he wants to remain true to the truth of history. Valery could not act in accordance with the French notions of honor, because he was a Roman. And Corneille's task was to show the heroes of Roman history, not the French.

Later, in theoretical work "Discourse on the Three Unities" (1660), Corneille expressed regret that the theme of Camille in his tragedy sounds so loud and uncompromising. He announced that by introducing this theme into his play, he had made a mistake and violated the integrity of "Horace".

13. "Rodogun"

Characters (like Corneille)

Cleopatra - Queen of Syria, widow of Demetrius

Seleucus, Antiochus - sons of Demetrius and Cleopatra

Rodoguna - sister of the Parthian king Phraates

Timagen - educator of Seleucus and Antiochus

Orontes - ambassador of Fraates

Laonica - sister of Timagen, confidante of Cleopatra

Detachments of Parthians and Syrians

Action in Seleucia, in the royal palace.

The preface to the author's text is a fragment from the book of the Greek historian Appian of Alexandria (II century) "Syrian Wars". The events described in the play date back to the middle of the 2nd century BC. BC when the Seleucid kingdom was attacked by the Parthians. The prehistory of the dynastic conflict is set forth in a conversation between Timagenes (teacher of the twin princes Antiochus and Seleucus) and his sister Laonica (confidante of Queen Cleopatra). Timagenes knows about the events in Syria by hearsay, since the queen mother ordered him to hide both sons in Memphis immediately after the alleged death of her husband Demetrius and the rebellion raised by the usurper Tryphon. Laonica, however, remained in Seleucia and witnessed how the people, dissatisfied with the rule of a woman, demanded that the queen enter into a new marriage. Cleopatra married her brother-in-law (that is, Demetrius' brother) Antiochus, and together they defeated Tryphon. Then Antiochus, wanting to avenge his brother, attacked the Parthians, but soon fell in battle. At the same time it became known that Demetrius was alive and in captivity. Wounded by the betrayal of Cleopatra, he planned to marry the sister of the Parthian king Phraates Rodogune and regain the Syrian throne by force. Cleopatra managed to repulse the enemies: Demetrius was killed - according to rumors, by the queen herself, and Rodogune ended up in prison. Phraates threw a myriad army into Syria, however, fearing for the life of his sister, he agreed to make peace on the condition that Cleopatra cede the throne to the eldest of his sons, who would have to marry Rodogun. Both brothers fell in love with the captive Parthian princess at first sight. One of them will receive the royal title and the hand of Rodoguna - this significant event will put an end to the long troubles.

The conversation is interrupted with the appearance of the prince Antiochus (this is another Antiochus - the son of Cleopatra). He hopes for his lucky star and at the same time does not want to deprive Seleucus. Having made a choice in favor of love, Antiochus asks Timagen to speak with his brother: let him reign, renouncing Rodoguna. It turns out that Seleucus also wants to give up the throne in exchange for the princess. The twins swear to each other in eternal friendship - there will be no hatred between them. They made a too hasty decision: it is fitting for Rodoguna to reign together with her elder brother, whose name the mother will name.

Alarmed, Rodogune shares her doubts with Laonika: Queen Cleopatra will never give up the throne, as well as revenge. The wedding day is fraught with another threat - Rodogun is afraid of a marriage union with the unloved. Only one of the princes is dear to her - a living portrait of her father. She does not allow Laonika to give her name: passion can give itself away with a blush, and persons of the royal family must hide their feelings. Whoever heaven chooses for her husband, she will be faithful to her duty.

Rodoguna's fears are not in vain - Cleopatra is full of anger. The queen does not want to give up the power that she got at too high a price, moreover, she will have to crown the hated rival who stole Demetrius from her with a crown. She frankly shares her plans with the faithful Laonica: the throne will be received by one of the sons who will avenge their mother. Cleopatra tells Antiochus and Seleucus about the bitter fate of their father, who was killed by the villainous Rodoguna. The birthright must be earned - the elder will be indicated by the death of the Parthian princess (quote - I will give the throne to the one who / / Can pay, / / ​​The head of the Parthian / / Lay at my feet) .

The stunned brothers realize that their mother is offering them a crown at the cost of a crime. Antiochus still hopes to awaken good feelings in Cleopatra, but Seleucus does not believe in this: the mother loves only herself - there is no place in her heart for her sons. He suggests turning to Rodoguna - let her chosen one become king. The Parthian princess, warned by Laonica, tells the twins about the bitter fate of their father, who was killed by the villainous Cleopatra. Love must be won - her husband will be the one who avenges Demetrius. The dejected Seleucus tells his brother that he is renouncing the throne and the Rodogune - bloodthirsty women have repulsed his desire to both reign and love. But Antiochus is still convinced that mother and lover will not be able to resist tearful pleas.

Appearing to Rodogun, Antioch betrays himself into her hands - if the princess is burning with a thirst for revenge, let her kill him and make her brother happy. Rodoguna can no longer hide her secret - her heart belongs to Antiochus. Now she does not demand to kill Cleopatra, but the agreement remains inviolable: despite her love for Antiochus, she will marry the elder - the king. Inspired by success, Antiochus hurries to his mother. Cleopatra meets him severely - while he hesitated and hesitated, Seleucus managed to take revenge. Antioch admits that both of them are in love with Rodoguna and are not able to raise a hand against her: if his mother considers him a traitor, let him order him to commit suicide - he will submit to her without hesitation. Cleopatra is broken by the tears of her son: the gods are favorable to Antiochus - he is destined to receive the power and the princess. Immensely happy Antiochus leaves, and Cleopatra tells Laonica to call Seleucus. Only left alone, the queen gives vent to anger: she still wants revenge and mocks her son, who so easily swallowed the hypocritical bait.

Cleopatra tells Seleucus that he is the eldest and rightfully owns the throne, which Antiochus and Rodogune want to take possession of. Seleucus refuses to take revenge: in this terrible world, nothing seduces him anymore - let others be happy, and he can only expect death. Cleopatra realizes that she has lost both sons - the cursed Rodogune bewitched them, as Demetrius had before. Let them follow their father, but Seleucus will die first, otherwise she will inevitably be exposed.

The long-awaited moment of the wedding celebration is coming. Cleopatra's chair stands below the throne, which means her transition to a subordinate position. The queen congratulates her "dear children", and Antiochus and Rodoguna sincerely thank her. In Cleopatra's hands is a goblet with poisoned wine, from which the bride and groom must sip. At the moment when Antiochus raises the goblet to his lips, Timagenes rushes into the hall with terrible news: Seleucus was found on the alley of the park with a bloody wound in his chest. Cleopatra suggests that the unfortunate man committed suicide, but Timagen refutes this: before his death, the prince managed to convey to his brother that the blow was inflicted "with a dear hand, with a dear hand." Cleopatra immediately accuses Rhodoguna of the murder of Seleucus, and she blames Cleopatra. Antiochus is in painful meditation: "dear hand" points to his beloved, "native hand" - to his mother. Like Seleucus, the king experiences a moment of hopeless despair - having decided to surrender to the will of fate, he again raises the goblet to his lips, but Rodogune demands to try the wine brought by Cleopatra on the servant. The queen indignantly declares that she will prove her complete innocence. Taking a sip, she passes the goblet to her son, but the poison works too quickly. Rodoguna triumphantly points out to Antiochus how his mother turned pale and staggered. The dying Cleopatra curses the young spouses: may their union be filled with disgust, jealousy and quarrels - may the gods give them the same respectful and obedient sons as Antiochus. Then the queen asks Laonik to take her away and thereby save her from the last humiliation - she does not want to fall at the feet of Rodoguna. Antiochus is filled with deep sorrow: the life and death of his mother equally frighten him - the future is fraught with terrible troubles. The wedding celebration is over, and now you need to proceed to the funeral rite. Perhaps the heavens will nevertheless turn out to be favorable to the unfortunate kingdom.

The material that I found in the comments to "Rodoguna".

Corneille worked on the tragedy for about a year.

The plot of the tragedy is based on the relationship between Syria and the Parthian kingdom - states that emerged in the Middle East after the collapse of the empire of Alexander the Great (3-2 centuries BC)

Corneille exactly follows the story of Appian of Alexandria, set forth in his work “The Syrian Wars”: the Syrian king Demetrius II Nicanor, having been captured by the Parthian king Phraates, married his sister Rodogune. After the disappearance of Demetrius, the Syrian throne changed hands for a long time, and, finally, Antiochus, Demetrius's brother, fell to him. He married Demetnri's widow, Cleopatra.

Corneille changed the course of events a little, because. was very moral and wanted everything to be decorous and smooth:

1) Firstly, he has only the bride Demetrius, which means that the love for her of the twin sons Antiochus and Seleucus loses its incestuous shade. (They love not the wife, but the bride of the father).

2) 2) Secondly, he justifies Cleopatra, according to Corneille, she marries Antioch, because receives false news of her husband's death.

The tragedy was first staged in 1644 on the stage of the Burgundy Hotel. Firmly entered the repertoire of the French theater, staged more than 400 times. Published as a separate book in 1647. First published here in 1788 in the translation of Knyaznin.

The tragedy opens with a very flattering letter to the Prince of Conde, where Corneille praises the military merits of this Conde and in every possible way implores him, the great commander, to take a little look at this unworthy creation of the despicable, worthless slave of Corneille. A very flattering letter of praise to Condé, if asked. Prince Conde is a real historical person, a famous French commander. The letter is followed by a huge prose excerpt from Appian about the Syrian wars, and only then the text of the tragedy itself.

Cleopatra- Syrian queen who killed King Demetrius Nicanor for his intention to ascend the throne

together with the Parthian queen Rodoguna. K. is the real protagonist

tragedy, although her name is not in the title; first bad character

from the subsequent string of "villains" who took their place in the tragedies of Corneille's "old

All the speeches of the queen breathe frenzied

malice and hatred for anyone, even a relative, pretender to the throne. AT

in the very first monologue, she vows to take cruel revenge on Rodoguna, who "dreamed

reign" with Nikanor, "covering her with shame." K. neglects nothing

and sets before his sons an impossible task for them - to kill their beloved

Rodogun for the sake of the throne. This terrible command comes from the mouth of Seleucus, her son,

gloomy question: "Do I really call you mother, Megara?" Cunning and insidious,

K. plays with his own sons, not renouncing outright lies. Seeing

in the near only herself, suspecting treason in everyone, she kills Seleucus, drowning out

maternal feelings. K. gives an imaginary blessing on the marriage to Antiochus

and Rodogune. But during the celebration, Antiochus learns of the death of his brother and, shocked

mother's inhumanity, tries to drink a cup of wine poisoned by her. TO.,

filled with burning hatred for her daughter-in-law and son, who took the place of the lord,

she drinks the poison herself, her face is contorted with pain and anger, and even on the edge of the grave

she spews terrible curses from herself.

Rodogune- sister

Parthian king Phraates, captured by Cleopatra, queen of Syria. Her beauty

and proud grandeur conquered the hearts of the two sons of Cleopatra - Seleucus and Antiochus.

14. Dispute about "Sid" (Criticism)

The dispute about "Sid" is the most important stage in the formation of French classicism, not only as a system of rules, non-compliance with which could become the starting point for cruel criticism of the writer, but also as a reflection of a certain type of creative practice that has significantly enriched itself over the seven years that separate the "Opinion of the French Academy on tragicomedy Sid on the twenty-four hour rule. In addition, it showed how the royal power interfered (and influenced) literature (in this case, we are talking about Cardinal Richelieu).

The glorification of feudal knightly honor seemed extremely untimely in the political situation of the 1630s, and its defense in a duel came into direct conflict with the official ban on duels, which were severely punished by law. The royal power appeared in the play as a completely secondary force, only formally participating in the action. Finally, the very appeal to the Spanish plot and characters played an important role in the minister’s dissatisfaction at a time when France was waging a long and exhausting war with Spain, and the “Spanish party” of Queen Anne of Austria, hostile to Richelieu, was operating at court.

Having written his "Sid", Corneille turned out to be the object of slander, unfair attacks and was forced to submit his work to the court of the French Academy, although, not being a member of it, he was not obliged to report to them. But such was the unspoken will of Richelieu, which neither Corneille nor the Academy dared to disobey. The Opinion of the Académie française on the tragicomedy "The Cid" was compiled, and the bulk of the text is believed to have been Chaplin's, with the final revision by Richelieu.

I will note some points regarding “Opinions about “Sid”:

Criticism is addressed to a specific work and does not deviate from its text for a minute.

In contrast to the openly hostile criticism of Scuderi and Maire, here a tribute is paid to the artistic merits of the work - the mastery of plot construction, the impressive depiction of passions, the brightness of metaphors, the beauty of the verse (nevertheless, it is the success of the play and its artistry that force, according to the authors of Opinion, to its critical analysis)

The criterion comes to the fore credibility . The old bastards believed that plausibility was observed only if the viewer believes what he sees, and this can only happen when nothing that happens on the stage repels him. In "Sid", in their opinion, the viewer should be repelled by many things. The "immorality" of the heroine violates the plausibility of the play. In the treatise, the analysis of the plot, the behavior of the characters, their moral character aims to prove that plausibility is not just the similarity of what is depicted on the stage with reality. Plausibility implies the consistency of the depicted event with the requirements of reason and, moreover, with a certain moral and ethical norm, namely, with the ability of a person to suppress his passions and emotions in the name of a certain moral imperative. The fact that the episode of Rodrigo’s marriage to the daughter of the count he killed was presented in many earlier sources, could not, according to the authors, serve as an excuse for the poet, because “reason makes the property of epic and dramatic poetry precisely the plausible, and not the truthful ... There is such a monstrous truth, the image of which should be avoided for the good of society. The image of the ennobled truth, the orientation not to the historically reliable, but to the plausible, that is, to the generally accepted moral norm, later became one of the main principles of classic poetics and the main point of disagreement with Corneille.

They condemned the love of the heroes of the play, opposing it to a child duty, commanding Jimena to reject the murderer of her father. Khryshchi believed that this love would be justified if the marriage of Rodrigo and Jimena was necessary to save the king or kingdom (-Chimena, if you don’t marry me, then the Moors will attack our kingdom and devour our king! - in fact, I just don’t I can imagine another situation in which the life of the king could depend on the marriage of X and P)

A frank political trend, but, we must pay tribute to the editor, remarks of a political nature are introduced, as it were, in passing, and universal and aesthetic ones are put forward as the main arguments (critics needed a different pathos and a different artistic structure)

Critics wanted to see fanatics of duty as the heroes of the tragedy - a moral imperative that leaves an imprint on the inner world of the individual.

The characters' characters should be constant, i.e. good people are good, and evil people do evil (Corneille is not entirely clear on this point)

The plot must be chosen, proceeding not from the truth of events, but from considerations of plausibility.

Overloading the action with external events that required, according to her calculations, at least 36 hours (instead of the allowed 24)

Introduction of the second storyline (the unrequited love of the Infanta for Rodrigo)

Use of free strophic forms

Corneille stubbornly continued to object directly or indirectly to critics about the condemnation of "Sid" and the restrictions of art by rules. In the 20 years that separate his first speeches on questions of theory from his Discourses on Dramatic Poetry, his tone has changed. The argument was enriched by the analysis of ancient texts and justifications taken from Italian theorists. And at the same time, in the main, Corneille adhered to the previous opinions, defending the rights of the artist within the classicist system. In particular, admitting the principle of plausibility, which he initially denied, Corneille emphasized that he was accompanied by the principle of necessity, i.e., that “directly relates to poetry”, which is due to the poet’s desire to “please according to the laws of his art”.

Corneille believed that he needed to put a sufficient number of events within the limits of the play - otherwise you would not build a developed intrigue. And he proposed this method: let the stage time coincide with the real time, but in the intermissions time flows faster and, say, out of 10 hours of action, 8 falls on intermissions. The only exception should be made for the 5th act, where time can be compressed, otherwise this part of the play will seem simply boring to the viewer, impatiently awaiting the denouement. Corneille stands for the maximum concentration of time within not only the scene, but also the play as a whole. The playwright broadly formulates for himself the principle of unity of action. In a play, he writes, “there should be only one completed action ... but it can only unfold through several other, unfinished actions that serve to develop the plot and maintain, to the pleasure of the viewer, his interest.” Secondly, he interprets the unity of the place in an expansive place - as the unity of the city. This is due to the need to build a relatively complex intrigue. This does not conflict with the principle of the unity of time, because, due to the proximity of the distance, it is possible to move from one place to another quite quickly, and the construction of intrigue is simplified, becomes more natural. Concerning the unity of the scene, Corneille wrote that the scenery should change only during intermissions, and by no means in the middle of the act, or it should be done so that the scenes of action did not have different scenery at all, but had a common name (for example, Paris, Rome, London etc.). In addition, Corneille considered it absolutely contraindicated for drama to remove part of the events beyond its chronological framework.

Now about Chaplin (this is a gloomy dude who worked as a secretary at the French Academy and wrote the most approximate version of Opinion in order to please Mr. Richelieu). It should be noted that this felt boot was also one of the founders of the doctrine of classicism. He believed that "perfect imitation" should be associated with utility (as the goal of dramatic poetry). He wrote that the benefit is achieved if the viewer believed in the authenticity of the depicted, experienced it as a real event, was excited thanks to “the strength and visibility with which various passions are depicted on the stage, and through this cleansed the soul of bad habits that could lead him to the same troubles as these passions. Moreover, for Chaplin, imitation does not simply mean copying events and characters: “For its perfection, poetry needs verisimilitude.” Even pleasure is “created by order and plausibility” (in general, you understand: you need to pray, fast, listen to the radio “Radonezh”). Chaplin writes that "plausibility is the poetic essence of a dramatic poem." Regarding the 3 unities, Chaplin writes the following: the eye of the viewer must inevitably come into conflict with the imagination, and everything possible must be done so that because of this faith in the authenticity of what is happening on the stage is not lost.

Such ideas of Corneille corresponded to the general line of development of literary-critical ideas in France. In the 30s - 60s. appears in many treatises on the art of the theater (most famous are Jules de la Menardiere's "Poetics" and Abbé d'Aubignac's "Practice of the Theater" -> highlight the requirements that turn the art of the Seine into a tool suitable for illustrating "useful truths"). Corneille argued with them in his Discourses on Dramatic Poetry. He believed that art should first of all "like", mastering at the same time the feeling and mind of the viewer + be useful.

The discussion about "Sid" was the occasion for a clear formulation of the rules of classical tragedy. “The opinion of the French Academy on the tragicomedy “Sid”” became one of the program manifestos of the classical school.

In short:

The novelty of "Cid" lies in the sharpness of the internal conflict - the difference from the "correct tragedies" of his time (dramatic tension, dynamism, which provided the play with a long stage life) -> it is precisely because of this that unprecedented success -> Richelieu's dissatisfaction with the "Spanish" theme and violation of the norms of classicism - > the dispute goes beyond the literary environment –> within one year, over 20 critical works appear, which amounted to the so-called. fight against the "Cid" -> main opponent - Scuderi -> "battle" acquires a wide public resonance -> The French Academy presented its opinion to Richelieu three times, but only the 3rd version, compiled by Chaplin, was approved by the cardinal and published at the beginning of 1638. under the title "Opinion of the French Academy on the tragicomedy "Sid"" (the genre definition of the play, given by Corneille himself, is explained primarily by a happy ending, an unconventional "romantic" plot and the fact that the main characters did not belong to the "high" category of kings or heroes).

15. Poetics of the tragedies of Racine in the 60s ("Andromache", "Britannica")

"Andromache" A year has passed since Troy was destroyed, and the Greeks divided all the booty. Pyrrhus (the son of Achilles, the very one who killed Hector), the king of Epirus got, among other things, Andromache (Hector's widow) with a little boy (whom dad gave wooden toys in the movie Troy). Pyrrhus burns with passion for Andromache, and therefore does not touch her and her son, and periodically harasses her. Andromache honors the memory of Hector. Pyrrhus, meanwhile, has already brought the bride Hermione (not Granger), the daughter of the same Helen and Menelaus. In fact, it was originally intended for Orestes (son of Agamemnon), but Menelaus decided that the son of Achilles would be cooler than the son of Agamemnon. Orestes does not agree with this - he wants Hermione. As a wife, of course. He comes to Epirus. The tragedy begins.

Orestes explains to his friend Pylades that he came to Epirus as an ambassador "on behalf of Hellas" - to ask for the surrender of the captives to Andromache and the boy. Otherwise, there will be war. But there is another option in reserve - to give Hermione and not disgrace her - she is still not going to marry.

Pyrrhus listens to Orestes and reasonably remarks that a year after the war, it is bad manners to carry out reprisals against captives. And then, this is his prey. In general, sent him to Hermione.

Pyrrhus admits to his mentor Phoenix that he will only be glad to get rid of Hermione. He took her out of respect for Menelaus, he wanted to marry, and here Andromache is all of herself. It turns out ugly. And everything seems to be fine.

But then he goes to A. and tells her that Greece asks her and her son to be killed. But he will not give them offense if she marries him. A. says that she does not need her life, she lives only for the sake of her son. And Pyrrhus should not blackmail her, but should take pity on the boy free of charge. Pyrrhus was not imbued and changed his mind.

Orestes reminds Hermione that he loves her. Pyrrhus is not. He asks to go with him. Hermione (for her personal reasons of pride) does not want to leave, but Orestes tells him to ask Pyrrhus. What he does.

Pyrrhus says - yes, take it. Prisoners. Just go to my wedding with Hermione first. Orestes turns green, but does not show it. Hermione rejoices, she thinks that Pyrrhus finally saw WHO is the daughter of Elena the Beautiful.

Andromache is in despair, she understands that Pyrrhus is alien to humanism and needs to do something. After a few pages, she decides to agree, but how! At a ceremony in the temple, take a promise from Pyrrhus to adopt her child and, with a calm soul, stab yourself with a dagger.

Hermione finds out that Pyrrhus is marrying A. Calls Orestes (he was going to kidnap her, and then such luck). He says that he will become his as soon as he avenges her honor - he will kill Pyrrhus, right in the temple. Orestes turns green again, but leaves to think.

Pyrrhus comes to G. to ask for forgiveness and releases her on all 4 sides.

Orestes runs to Hermione, says that everything is chiki-farts, Pyrrhus got married to A., and Orestes' subjects cut his lukewarm right on the altar (he himself could not get into their crowd). Hermione goes crazy with grief, says that O. is a monster, he killed the best man in the world and there is no forgiveness for him. And the fact that she herself ordered him to do this is that there is no need to listen to the nonsense of a “woman in love”.

G. goes and kills himself with an apsten dagger and falls to Pyrrhus. Orestes finds out about this, sees corpses and snake-headed Erinyes (demons of revenge) and falls unconscious. His friend asks to take him away and, upon waking up, remove all piercing and cutting objects away from him.

"British" Britannicus is the name of one of the main characters, the brother of Emperor Nero, after his mother Agrippina. Their fathers are different. Moreover, Britannicus is the native son of the former emperor Claudius, who foolishly adopted Nero, the son of Agripinna from her first husband (A. is a twice widow). Therefore, the elder Nero became emperor.

In very distant times, when the most developed countries did not yet exist, there were two main states, Rome and Alba, and they were allies and trading partners. Once they did not share something, and their once strong friendship turned into a great enmity. Now the formidable army of Alba has approached the walls of Rome and, finally, longs for a great war.

The wife of a Roman Horace was named Sabina. During this fight, she was faced with a choice, because it was at this moment that the life of her Alba, as well as her three beloved brothers Curiatius, was decided. She understands that because of the war they have to fight against her husband.

Horace's sister, whose name is Camilla, also has a hard time. After all, one of the brothers is her fiancé. He has to fight Horace. Her friend, whose name is Julia, says that she should root not for her beloved fiancé, but for the victory of Rome in this difficult and bloody battle.

In order to find out the results of this difficult and one of the most cruel wars of that time, Camilla decides to go to the mysterious and mysterious soothsayer. Using his miraculous abilities, he informs the excited Camilla that everything will end for her personally in the best possible way. Unfortunately, Camille had a terrible and nightmare dream in which, after the end of the war, everyone dies.

The smart and wise ruler of a strong Rome named Tull, as well as the strong and steadfast leader of Alba, together decide on an unusual way to sort things out. From each city, only three of the strongest and most courageous warriors will converge, who will converge in battle. The winners in this kind of duel will also take power over the city.

Unfortunately for the main character, the choice of three warriors just fell on her three Horati brothers. They were chosen in order to protect the city from strangers and defend the Rome that is dear to them. But for Alba, three brothers of Curation were also chosen. Now they have to try to capture Rome and thereby show that they are excellent warriors. All of them face a very difficult choice that not everyone would make. They need to win and protect Rome, but at the same time they are relatives to each other. Horace has made his choice and now he is ready for a real fight not for life, but for death.

Camilla, as a loving wife, dissuades him from this mortal battle, but honor and valor for Curacia are much more significant and he still goes to battle.

So that Horace and Curatia would not be disgraced by the stigma of fratricides, Sabina makes a terrible and terrible decision to die in order to interrupt the family relationship that connects them.

Horace, already far from being young, tells his own son and son-in-law to do their duty and fight each other to the death.

Sabina realizes that in any case, regardless of who won the fight, she will see only the killer in the winner, who will bring her a lot of pain and suffering.

The valiant Romans and Albins are also not particularly pleased with such a cruel alignment of affairs, they do not want the fact that two families connected by family ties will enter into battle. The wise leaders of the two states decide to ask the gods for permission and therefore make a sacrifice to them. For a moment, Sabina had hope for a good outcome, but it fades very quickly, as the Gods decided that there should be a fratricidal duel.

Julia comes and reports information from the battlefield and she says that two of Horace's brothers died in battle, and the third fled in disgrace. Old Horace curses him and says that he is disgraced. After that, Valery arrives, who reports that the surviving patrician used a special tactic and one by one lured them into a trap and killed them all with a sword there.

His father replaces curses with praises, Camilla is upset and full of sadness and is not at all happy that Rome will continue to exist. Unable to endure, she decides to tell everything to her heroically victorious brother, he cannot stand all this and kills her. Now Sabina also wants to die, so as not to be saddened by the death of her brothers.

Horace, having done all these atrocities, asks the king's permission to kill himself with a sword.

The wise King Tull says that supposedly the hero Horace will live, since he has violated all permitted norms in order to protect his own Motherland. And that is higher than anything else in the world.

Picture or drawing Corneille - Horace

Other retellings and reviews for the reader's diary

• Summary What a pity Solzhenitsyn

  On one of the gloomy, rainy days, Anna Modestovna, during her dinner, went to one of the institutions for the information she needed. But there was also lunch. There were 15 minutes left before it ended, and she decided to wait, moreover, that she had time for her work.

• Summary Kuprin Elephant

  The story "The Elephant" shows the miraculous recovery of a little girl who dreamed only of an elephant. The six-year-old girl Nadia does not eat, does not drink, turns pale and loses weight, does not play and does not laugh. What is the disease? Doctors shrug ... But one of them suggests

• Summary of Prishvin Lesnaya drops

  Two children were orphaned at times, as their mother died of a serious illness, while the father of the children died in the Patriotic War. Many people, mostly neighbors, did their best to help poor people, as the children were really very nice.

• Summary of Nietzsche Thus Spoke Zarathustra

  This work consists of four parts. The basis of the novel is philosophical parables covering the themes of morality and morality. In the first part of the book, the main character Zarathustra

• Summary of Lermontov the Fugitive

  This poem tells about a young man who fled from the battlefield, where his father and brothers fell. Driven by fear, he goes to his native village, where everyone rejects him.

Corneille Pierre

Pierre Corneille

Tragedy

Translation by N. Rykova

CHARACTERS

Tullus, Roman king.

Old Horace, noble Roman.

Horace, his son.

Curiatius, Albanian nobleman, lover of Camilla.

Valerius, a noble Roman, in love with Camilla.

Sabina, wife of Horace and sister of Curiatius.

Camilla, beloved of Curiatia and sister of Horace.

Julia, noble Roman woman, confidante of Sabina and Camilla.

Flavian, Albanian warrior.

Proculus, Roman soldier.

The action takes place in Rome,

in one of the chambers of Horace's house.

STEP ONE

PHENOMENON FIRST

Sabina, Julia

Alas! The spirit is weakening, and I am full of grief:

She is justified in such misfortune.

After all, there is no courage that without complaints

Under the wind of such a thunderstorm it would stand,

And the strongest spirit, no matter how strict,

I could not remain unshaken.

A tormented soul cannot hide the shock;

But I do not want to pour out her confusion in tears.

Yes, the heart cannot appease its deaf longing,

But steadfastness rules: the eyes are submissive to it.

Having risen at least a little above female weakness,

We will set a limit to complaints with a strict will.

Our weaker sex has gained enough courage,

When we do not shed tears, no matter how heavy the lot is.

Enough - for ordinary people, perhaps:

In any danger, their mortal fear disturbs.

But noble hearts do not get tired

And doubting - to wait for a successful end.

Opponents converged at the city stronghold,

But Rome has not known defeat until now.

Oh no, we shouldn't be afraid for him.

He is ready for victory, ready for war.

You are now a Roman, throw away your fear in vain,

Living on Roman valor with passionate hope.

Horace is a Roman. Alas, the custom is right.

I became a Roman, becoming his wife.

But for me marriage would be cruel slavery,

Whenever in Rome I forgot about my homeland.

O Alba, where for the first time light shone for the eyes!

How dearly I loved her since childhood!

Now we are at war with her, and our troubles are heavy;

But for me defeat is not harder than victory.

May the sword of the enemy rise against you, O Rome,

Who could ignite the hatred in me!

But the Albanian army will fight with your army,

In one of them is my husband, in the other brothers,

Do I dare to pester the immortal gods,

Criminally begging them to give you victory?

I know that your country is still young,

And strengthen her martial glory,

And high rock ordered her to cross

Latin fiefdoms bequeathed limit.

The gods judged us: domination over the universe

You will establish with war and military prowess,

And not grieving that your obedient ardor to the gods

From now on I directed you on a proud path,

I would like to see that I'm invincible

Beyond the Pyrenees and the power and strength of Rome.

Let your regiments reach Asia,

Let the Rhine see their glorious badges,

And the rocks of Hercules set a limit to campaigns

But spare the city where Romulus comes from:

You are indebted to the seed of its kings, Rome,

And the power of their walls, and their name.

Born of Alba, don't you understand

Why are you plunging a sharp sword into your mother's heart?

Go in a foreign land to smash and win,

And the mother will rejoice in the happiness of her sons;

And if you do not offend her with enmity,

She will understand you as a parent.

It seems strange to me that such a speech: since then

How a formidable dispute arose with Alba in Rome,

You did not suffer at all about your former homeland,

As if the Romans became native by blood.

You for the sake of a sweetheart in this harsh hour

From loved ones and relatives as if renounced,

And I bring you such consolation

As if only Rome mattered now.

As long as the damage was too small in battles,

To threaten one of the two sides with death,

While there is still hope for the world,

I've always thought of myself as a Roman.

Annoyance is easy that Rome is happy in the fight,

At once I knew how to suppress in myself;

And if sometimes in the game of fate random

Secretly welcomed the successes of relatives,

Then, having found the mind, she was sad later,

That glory flees us and enters the father's house.

Now the hour appointed by fate is near:

Not Rome will fall to dust, so Alba will become a slave.

And there is no battles and victories beyond the line

Barriers for some, others - no hope.

In ruthless enmity I would be with my family,

If these days I yearned only for Rome,

Praying the gods to glorify him in the war

At the price of the blood that is precious to me.

What the husband aspires to - worries me a little:

I was not for Rome, I did not stand for Alba,

Equally, I grieve for them in the struggle of the last days:

But I will only be for those who are weaker from now on.

When others win in a military dispute,

I will turn away from glory and be where the grief is.

In the midst of cruel troubles, O heart, prepare

Victory - hatred, defeated - love.

Verily, always in the midst of such adversity

Dissimilar seething passions in dissimilar souls!

Discord like yours Camilla is alien.

Your brother is her fiancé, and your husband is her brother;

With that army - the connection of hearts, and with this - the connection at home,

She solved the problem in a different way.

You raised the soul of a Roman woman in yourself,

Her well - in doubt and internal struggle

Frightened every fight and a small skirmish;

Not wanting victory or glory for anyone,

She mourned for those who suffered,

And eternal longing was her destiny.

But when she heard that soon

The battle will boil, the outcome of solving the dispute,

Unexpected delight flashed in her eyes ...

Such a sharp turn in me gives rise to fear!

With Valery she is overly friendly

And now my brother will not be faithful;

Everything that is nearby is easily carried away,

She does not think about what has been separated from her.

But related love is forgivable worries

Caring only for him, I fear her decision,

Although there are no real reasons for fear:

Is it love to play in the hours of cruel troubles,

Subdue dreams changeable and idle

And give your soul to unknown temptations?

But to be like her, we also should not

And too cheerful and too gentle.

It is also dark and incomprehensible to me,

And I can't find the answer to the riddle.

Enough fortitude - foresee the near thunder

And wait for him to strike, and not grieve about it.

But to show the joy - who then can do it?

Look - a good spirit brought Camille here to us!

You are in friendship: she has nothing to hide from you,

You will convince her to speak freely.

PHENOMENON TWO

Camille, Sabina, Julia

Stay with Julia, Camilla. I shouldn't

To embarrass you, gloomy dull bothering.

And the soul that is sick from a thousand adversities,

It attracts sad solitude.

PHENOMENON THREE

Camilla, Julia

I'm here for a friendly chat!

Is it not the same evil troubles that threaten me?

Is it now me, whose lot is so severe,

I shed fewer tears and fewer mournful words?

The same fear brings torment to my soul;

I am bitterly defeated by both camps,

For the honor of his country, my friend will fall in battle,

And if he wins, he will win mine!

The groom will receive only one from me, dear:

Not evil hatred, so tears over the grave.

Alas! We will give all pity to Sabina;

Beloved - you will find, the spouse - is irreplaceable.

Accept Valery as a sweet meeting,

And your connection with Alba will be fatally broken,

You will remain ours entirely then,

And grief for you will not be their misfortune.

How can I not reproach you for such advice?

Sympathize with sorrows without asking for shame.

Although I have no strength to bear the burden of my torment,

I would rather endure than become worthy of them.

How! Do you call the reasonable shameful?

Do you think betrayal is harmless?

When the enemy is before us - what can oblige?

We are bound by an oath - it cannot be unleashed.

You try to hide, but is it worth the effort?

After all, you and Valery were friends yesterday

And they had such a conversation with each other,

That hopes blossomed in his heart.

I was gentle with him, as with the best friend,

Not out of love for him, not according to his merits.

There was another reason for my joy.

Listen, Julia, my detailed story.

Curiatius is my friend, my bridegroom before the whole world,

I don't want to be known as a traitor.

When he handed over his sister Horace

Happy Hymen, he also fell in love,

And my father, sympathetic to his attraction,

He promised to give him Camilla as his wife.

That day - I don’t remember a more joyful and gloomy day,

Having combined two houses, he quarreled two kings.

I lit the fire of war and the torch of Hymen,

Awakened hope and instantly finished it,

Bliss promised and taken away at the same hour

And, having cemented our alliance, he made us enemies.

Oh, how our hearts were tormented by regrets!

What blasphemy he sent to the heavens!

Longtime allies Rome and Alba went to war with each other. Until now, only minor skirmishes have taken place between the enemy armies, but now, when the Albanian army is standing at the walls of Rome, a decisive battle must be played out.

The heart of Sabina, the wife of the noble Roman Horace, is filled with confusion and sorrow: now, in a fierce battle, either her native Alba or Rome, which has become her second home, will be defeated. Not only is the thought of the defeat of either side equally sad for Sabina, by the evil will of fate in this battle the most dear people to her must draw swords against each other - her husband Horace and her three brothers, the Curiatians.

Horatia's sister, Camilla, also curses the evil fate that brought two friendly cities together in mortal enmity, and does not consider her position easier than that of Sabina, although her confidante friend Julia tells her about this. Julia is sure that Camilla should root for Rome with all her heart, since only her birth and family ties are connected with him, while the oath of allegiance that Camilla exchanged with her Albanian fiancé Curiatius is nothing when the honor and prosperity of the motherland are placed on the other side of the scales.

Exhausted by excitement about the fate of her native city and her fiancé, Camilla turned to the Greek soothsayer, and he predicted to her that the dispute between Alba and Rome would end in peace the next day, and she would unite with Curiatius, never to be separated again. A dream that Camilla had that night dispelled the sweet deception of prediction: in a dream, she saw a cruel massacre and piles of dead bodies.

When suddenly a living, unharmed Curiatia appears before Camilla, the girl decides that for the sake of love for her, the noble Albanian gave up his duty to his homeland, and in no way condemns the lover.

But it turns out that everything is not so: when the rati came together for battle, the leader of the Albans turned to the Roman king Tull with the words that fratricide should be avoided, because the Romans and Albanians belong to the same people and are interconnected by numerous family ties; he proposed to resolve the dispute by a duel of three fighters from each army, on the condition that the city whose soldiers were defeated would become a subject of the victorious city. The Romans gladly accepted the proposal of the Albanian leader.

At the choice of the Romans, the three Horace brothers will have to fight for the honor of their native city. Curiatius is jealous of the great fate of the Horatii - to glorify the homeland or lay down their heads for it - and regrets that, with any outcome of the duel, he will have to mourn either the humiliated Alba or his dead friends. Horace, the embodiment of Roman virtues, does not understand how one can mourn for someone who accepted death for the glory of his native country.

Behind such speeches, friends are caught by an Albanian warrior who brought the news that Alba had chosen the three Curiatius brothers as her protectors. Curiatius is proud that it was on him and his brothers that the choice of compatriots fell, but at the same time, in his heart he would like to avoid this new blow of fate - the need to fight with his sister's husband and bride's brother. Horace, on the contrary, warmly welcomes the choice of the Albanians, who assigned him an even more lofty lot: it is a great honor to fight for the fatherland, but at the same time to overcome the bonds of blood and human affections - few people have had the opportunity to acquire such perfect glory.

Camilla does her best to dissuade Curiatius from entering into a fratricidal duel, conjures him with the name of their love and almost succeeds, but the noble Albanian still finds the strength not to change his duty for the sake of love.

Sabina, unlike her relative, does not think to dissuade her brother and husband from the duel, but only wants this duel not to become fratricidal - for this she must die, and with her death the family ties that bind the Horatii and Curiatii will be interrupted.

The appearance of old Horace stops the conversations of the heroes with women. The honored patrician commands his son and son-in-law, relying on the judgment of the gods, to hasten to fulfill their high duty.

Sabina is trying to overcome her spiritual grief, convincing herself that, no matter who falls in the fight, the main thing is not who brought death to him, but in the name of what; she inspires herself that she will certainly remain a faithful sister if her brother kills her husband, or a loving wife if her husband hits her brother. But all in vain: Sabina confesses again and again that in the winner she will first of all see the killer of a person dear to her.

Sabina's sorrowful reflections are interrupted by Julia, who brought her news from the battlefield: as soon as six fighters went out to meet each other, a murmur swept through both armies: both the Romans and the Albanians were outraged by the decision of their leaders, who condemned the Horatii and Curiatii to a criminal fratricidal duel. King Tull heeded the voice of the people and announced that sacrifices should be made in order to find out from the entrails of animals whether the choice of fighters was pleasing to the gods or not.

Hope again settles in the hearts of Sabina and Camilla, but not for long - old Horace tells them that, by the will of the gods, their brothers entered into battle with each other. Seeing the grief this news plunged women into, and wanting to strengthen their hearts, the father of heroes starts talking about the greatness of the lot of his sons, performing feats for the glory of Rome; Roman women - Camilla by birth, Sabina by virtue of marriage - both of them at this moment should think only about the triumph of their homeland ...

Again appearing before her friends, Julia tells them that the two sons of the old Horace fell from the swords of the Albans, while the third, the husband of Sabina, flees; Julia did not wait for the outcome of the duel, for it is obvious.

Julia's story strikes old Horace to the very heart. Having paid tribute to the two gloriously dead defenders of Rome, he swears that the third son, whose cowardice with an indelible shame covered the hitherto honorable name of the Horatii, will die by his own hand. No matter how Sabina and Camilla ask him to moderate his anger, the old patrician is implacable.

Valery, a noble young man, whose love was rejected by Camilla, comes to old Horace as a messenger from the king. He starts talking about the surviving Horace and, to his surprise, hears terrible curses from the old man against the one who saved Rome from shame. Only with difficulty interrupting the bitter outpourings of the patrician, Valery talks about what, having prematurely left the city wall, Julia did not see: Horace's flight was not a manifestation of cowardice, but a military trick - running away from the wounded and tired Curiatii, Horace thus separated them and fought with each in turn, one on one, until all three fell to his sword.

Old Horace triumphs, he is full of pride for his sons - both those who survived and those who laid down their heads on the battlefield. Camilla, struck by the news of the death of her lover, is consoled by her father, appealing to the mind and fortitude that have always adorned the Romans.

But Camilla is inconsolable. And not only is her happiness sacrificed to the greatness of proud Rome, this very Rome requires her to hide grief and, together with everyone, rejoice at the victory won at the cost of crime. No, this will not happen, Camille decides, and when Horace appears before her, expecting praise from her sister for her feat, he unleashes a stream of curses on him for killing the groom. Horace could not imagine that in the hour of the triumph of the fatherland one could be killed after the death of her enemy; when Camilla begins to revile Rome with the last words and call terrible curses on her hometown, his patience comes to an end - with the sword with which her fiancé was killed shortly before, he stabs his sister to death.

Horace is sure that he did the right thing - Camilla ceased to be his sister and daughter to her father at the moment when she cursed her homeland. Sabina asks her husband to stab her too, for she too, contrary to her duty, mourns for the dead brothers, envious of the fate of Camilla, whom death delivered from hopeless grief and united with her beloved. Horace of great difficulty is not to fulfill the request of his wife.

Old Horace does not condemn his son for the murder of his sister - having betrayed Rome with her soul, she deserved death; but at the same time, by the execution of Camilla, Horace irretrievably ruined his honor and glory. The son agrees with his father and asks him to pronounce the verdict - whatever it may be, Horace agrees with him in advance.

In order to personally honor the father of the heroes, King Tull arrives at the house of the Horatii. He praises the valor of old Horace, whose spirit was not broken by the death of three children, and speaks with regret of the villainy that overshadowed the feat of his last surviving son. However, the fact that this villainy should be punished is out of the question until Valery takes the floor.

Calling on royal justice, Valery speaks of Camilla's innocence, who succumbed to a natural impulse of despair and anger, that Horace not only killed a blood relative for no reason, which is terrible in itself, but also outraged the will of the gods, blasphemously desecrating the glory bestowed by them.

Horace does not even think of defending himself or making excuses - he asks the king for permission to pierce himself with his own sword, but not to atone for the death of his sister, for she deserved it, but in the name of saving her honor and the glory of the savior of Rome.

Wise Tull listens to Sabina too. She asks to be executed, which will mean the execution of Horace, since husband and wife are one; her death - which Sabina seeks as deliverance, being unable to selflessly love the murderer of her brothers, or reject her beloved - will quench the wrath of the gods, while her husband will be able to continue to bring glory to the fatherland.

When everyone who had something to say spoke out, Tull pronounced his verdict: although Horace committed an atrocity, usually punishable by death, he is one of those few heroes who, on decisive days, serve as a reliable stronghold for their sovereigns; these heroes are not subject to the general law, and therefore Horace will live, and further jealous of the glory of Rome.

retold