Ancient rhetorical ideal and culture of revival. Coursework: rhetorical ideal in the media

23.09.2019 -

In ancient rhetoric, two rhetorical ideals were consistently developed. For speakers - bearers of the first ideal - the main thing in rhetorical activity is persuasiveness, then the truth of persuasive speech, morality for the benefit of society, clarity and orderliness. This ideal is called Socratic.

Another rhetorical ideal is considered sophistical. The bearers and supporters of this ideal are characterized by formal persuasiveness, excessive verbal beauty, magnificence, demanding speech, self-expression and self-interest of the speaker.

Modern rhetoricians believe that there are three rhetorical ideals at work today.

The first of them can be called close to sophistical, but now it is very Americanized, self-promotional, intrusive, such that it has everywhere filled the media and is aimed at manipulating the consciousness of the masses.

Another rhetorical ideal carries within itself the moral and ethical values of the East Slavic, ancient Ukrainian ideal. It is close to the first ancient ideal - the ideal of conviction and truth, the ideal of Plato and Socrates.

The third rhetorical ideal was formed in imperial and Soviet times. This rhetorical ideal is called totalitarian, propaganda.

All these ideals, in modified forms, still live in the world of modern Ukrainian society. And this is natural. It is a pity that together they do not represent a single balanced rhetorically ideal system, in which they must correspond to certain social models of life and behavior of broadcasters. Unfortunately, the modern American rhetorical ideal is now spreading in Ukrainian society, alien to Slavic culture, in particular Ukrainian, which has always had strong traditions of inheriting the Hellenic ancient culture. The American ideal is defeating our ideals in the media and popular culture. Ukrainian society has not yet freed itself from the totalitarian rhetorical ideal. The urgent, appealing, categorical, categorical speeches of many politicians are perceived as rudiments of the Soviet era: authoritarian thinking, intolerant monologue speech, linguistic aggression, telephone rights, power of speech, subordination of the interlocutor, etc. All this can be called politicized pseudo-rhetoric.

The Slavic, ancient Ukrainian rhetorical ideal was formed on ancient Greek traditions and Christian moral and ethical values. Characteristic features for him honor, nobility, humility, mercy, nobility, obedience, piety, spirituality. These principles formed the rhetorical ideal of love, or the ideal of humanistic rhetoric aimed at achieving harmony in relationships through the means of verbal communication.

In Greek rhetoric, the word love had many meanings:

1. Love is concrete-sensual, erotic. This is passion (pampering), sensual attraction to a distant subject (longing for someone).

2. Love-sympathy (feeling of inner closeness, kinship of souls). Subspecies: friendship, devotion, interest (in science), respect, love of parents.

3. Smart love - respect, intelligence, duty, care.

4. Sensual love - sympathy, pity, empathy. Harmony in rhetoric is a logical sequence of reasoning and

orderliness of speech is a measure of material and moderation of its presentation, a certain speech structure. In ancient rhetoric, harmony was called cosmos and meant “orderliness”, “embellishment”. Hence modern meaning the words cosmos (order of the universe) and the words cosmetics (embellishment, orderliness).

Rhetoric teachers have always believed that the mind, feelings, and will must be educated on the principles of goodness, beauty, and harmony. The rhetoric of love prevents conflicts, softens conflicts and disputes, and harmonizes society. Not only speakers, but also all speakers, in particular teachers, politicians, officials, and public opinion leaders should remember this.

The basic requirements for speakers in terms of the rhetorical ideal can be grouped into the following positions:

1. Confession of a certain rhetorical ideal, those principles that determine the chosen ideal, the implementation of the ideal in rhetorical practice through the observance of certain features.

In the system of the Slavic-Ukrainian rhetorical ideal, which developed on the basis of ancient rhetoric in the eras (Baroque, romantic, neo-romantic) of the Ukrainian national revival, the following features were necessary: consistency, clarity, measure, order, balance, endurance, patience, self-discipline, endurance, asceticism .

This rhetorical ideal was dominated by a harmonious trinity:

a) idea, thought, intentions, truth;

b) moral orientation toward goodness, ethics, goodness, justice, humanity;

c) beauty as harmony of content and form, expediency and linguistic perfection.

This ideal developed on the basis of Byzantine-Slavic Christian philosophy, then was supported by the ideas of the Renaissance Western European spiritual culture and reformation influences. It can be assumed that in the 16th century. The Ukrainian rhetorical ideal was determined in its main features (Lavrenty Zizaniy, Pamvo Berinda, Job Boretsky, Ioanniky Galatovsky, Gerasim Smotrytsky, Melety Smotrytsky, etc.) in the context of general reformation changes and the Slavic Renaissance. In the 17th century The Ukrainian rhetorical ideal acquired polemical features and was significantly strengthened by the support of the Ukrainian Cossacks, who acted with armed force in defense of Ukrainian liberties, lands, the Christian faith and their native language (the Liberation War of the Ukrainian people led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky). This is the era of the Ukrainian Baroque, saturated with Western European ideas of humanism, the early Enlightenment in synthesis with the Ukrainian mentality and socio-historical and cultural processes in the already divided Ukrainian lands. The Ukrainian rhetorical ideal flourished in the pedagogical, scientific-educational and social-cultural activities of outstanding rhetoricians, preachers, teachers of the Kiev College, and then the Kiev-Mohyla Academy (P. Mohyla, I. Gizel, S. Yavorsky, F. Prokopovich, G. Kansky, M. Kozachinsky, G. Kalinovsky, A. Kozachkivsky, F. Kokuilovich, K. Kondratovich, A. Kononovich-Gorbatsky, 3. Kozlov). They all taught rhetoric

at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy and colleges and seminaries in cities and towns of Ukraine (for example, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, etc.), they wrote textbooks on rhetoric.

In the XVII-XVIII centuries. a Ukrainian baroque rhetorical ideal was formed with a predominance of cordo-centrism, lyricism, aesthetics, and free-thinking (its features have been noticeable in Ukrainian literature since the time Kievan Rus, the era of I. Vyshensky and Skovoroda and until the end of the 20th century). Subsequent times added their own features to the rhetorical ideal.

The linguicide of the Ukrainian language, constant prohibitions and oppression of all cultural forms of social life in many Ukrainians extinguished the national consciousness, while in others they awakened it, encouraged resistance, strengthened the will, and forced ingenuity in artistic creativity. The Ukrainian rhetorical ideal becomes passionate, strong-willed, imaginative, multi-genre, because it is looking for ways to express itself in conditions of prohibitions. It is formed by the language creativity of Ivan Kotlyarevsky, petitions and stories of Grigory Kvitka-Osnovyanenko, poems and especially messages of Taras Shevchenko, notes of Panteleimon Kulish, journalism of Mikhail Drahomanov, historical works and political speeches of Mykhailo Grushevsky, dedications and speeches and poems of Ivan Franko, poetic "fiery language" Lesya Ukrainsky, language discussions of Ivan Nechuy-Levytsky, Mykhailo Kotsyubinsky, Boris Grinchenko, the epistoly of Panas Mirny, the journalism of Elena Pchelka and the work of many outstanding Ukrainian linguistic personalities.

The totalitarian autocratic and Soviet eras gave rise to the "language of power", authoritarian, directive speech, according to ancient rhetoric - "agonal" speech. Modern Ukrainian society strives to get rid of these totalitarian layers, to renew its spiritual and cultural spheres, and therefore prefers constructive dialogue, linguistic understanding, ideas of humanistic rhetoric,

2. The moral duty of the speaker is to be honest, fair, charitable, and open to people.

3. Highly educated speaker. The speaker must have in-depth knowledge not only of the subject of the speech, but also of the problems of the entire course of this discipline and related topics from related sciences.

4. It is obligatory for the speaker to speak fluent modern Ukrainian literary language, in particular its stylistic system, functional styles and genres, methods and techniques of organization artistic means for preparing and delivering speeches.

5. Expressive individual movement. It would be good if each speaker had his own oratorical style with characteristic individual features of his public speaking, knew how to create the desired tone and color of communication.

6. The speaker must be a nationally conscious person and have a positive influence on language practice.

Individual oratorical style includes:

Awareness of the need and education of original language thinking;

The speech-forming style is manifested in the peculiarities of the composition of speech, the construction of phrases, the tendency to use certain words and phrases, and individual artistic means;

Speaker's behavior in the audience; the ability to feel the “center” of communication, to switch the attention of listeners in a timely manner;

Kinesics and facial expressions and characteristic gestures;

Pronunciation and diction techniques, rhythm and melody.

Therefore, someone who wants to become a skilled speaker (orator, Krasnobaev) must take care of:

Education and deep knowledge of your profession and related matters;

A rhetorical ideal that one would like to emulate;

Searching for speakers whose broadcasting suits his taste, from whom he would like to learn, to find his linguistic authority;

Own oratorical style;

Ability to conduct an extended monologue (lecture) on professional issues;

Ability to have a constructive conversation;

Mastery of polemical eloquence, culture of dialogue and polylogue in discussions and debates;

Moral and ethical consideration of an educated and well-mannered person;

The ability to use the treasury of ancient and national rhetoric, the oratorical experience of predecessors and contemporaries (use samples of speeches and texts, rhetorical techniques, stylistic means national language).

It is this version of rhetorical positions that has received the widest distribution at different historical stages and the deepest theoretical justification. With slight differences in the views of individual authors, this trend unites the largest theorists and speakers, thinkers of the 4th-1st centuries. BC e. - Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero. This theoretical direction also absorbed the traditions of Homeric Greece.

In essence, the ancient Greek oral tradition and the heroic epic already laid the foundation for the maturing rhetorical ideal: the poems of Homer present the orators Menelaus, Odysseus, the texts of their speeches are given, and the power of their influence on people is shown. decisive moments struggle, as well as the most important thing - the choice of tragic and heroic moments in the lives of the heroes, the vividness of the description of events, the most complex construction of plots and the choice of linguistic means. Let us remind the reader that the Iliad and the Odyssey lived in people's memory for a long time and were transmitted orally.

The origins of this rhetorical movement, called ancient, are associated with the name of Homer (VI century BC), who was blind, but saw the distance of times better than the sighted.

VIV-III centuries. BC e. The theoretical positions of this Board, the rhetorical ideal, were formed, they had and still have a strong influence on the fate of ethics, literature, culture as a whole. These positions were supported by both pragmatic Rome and the middle-class

centuries, and the Renaissance, and even our contradictory tragic era.

Let's look at these positions.

1. Goals of rhetoric and oratory Socrates, Plato
Aristotle was seen as serving the good and happiness of people. The power of refuge
Denia as the main advantage of eloquence, skill as an orator
is not about achieving your own goals, subjugating people
yourself (at any cost), but to understand what makes people happy
how to achieve it. Thus, in Aristotle’s Rhetoric there are philosophies
Sophistic calculations of the author about the essence of happiness. He comes to a conclusion
I believe that happiness is multifaceted, it is in well-being, inspired
virtue, happiness is the respect of people, prosperity in the house
a big friendly family, and most importantly, “to have a good friend.”

2. Rhetoric is not only the practice of communication and eloquence
this science has its own subject - speech, it is closely related to philology
sophia, language, logic, ethics, literary criticism. Rhetoric
ka has its own goals, patterns, structure. As part of this
rhetorical direction, the doctrine of canons was formed -
inventions, dispositions, elocutions, etc., connections have been developed with
ethics (tropes, figures), stylistics, prosody, logic, those
oria of upbringing and education.

3. In the same system, it was developed with special care
the ideal model of a speaker as a highly educated individual, you
moral, active, with quick reactions,
sociable.

4. If in a sophistic system the attitude towards the listener is not
was respectful (it’s a pleasure to wrap him around your finger
tion), then the ethics of the ancient ideal required an appeal to listening
respectfully. Speech is a two-way process, the result depends
sieve from both sides.

In classical rhetoric, Aristotle developed a strict theory of speech mentality, speech ethics of an entire people, large social groups and those operating in them value orientations. The speaker focuses on a strong personality. These communication norms guide not only the speaker, but also both sides of linguistic contact, creating an atmosphere of mutual respect. Both parties are interested in a fruitful contact; the listener develops a certain expectation, anticipation, as well as a fear of misunderstanding, disagreement, and disharmony of communication.

These nuances are very subtle, sometimes difficult to detect, but they are the most valuable in communication. It should be noted here that at this level of communication the role of the subtlest shades of choice of words and turns of speech, intonation, and timbre of voice is very high. This is the highest spiritual level communication in any situation - from public speaking to intimate communication with loved ones.

High interest in this dominant contact, the establishment of an invisible connection, the birth of the first threads of mutual understanding would be noticeable in different eras, reflected in literature and the performances of brilliant actors.

The first feature of the ancient ideal is the attitude towards truth,
speakers who belonged to this type of ethical
practice confirmed the firmness of their convictions, their
by __ not 0TST fall from one’s own hard-won understanding

It is known that the great Socrates could save his life, And he preferred death to flight by drinking a cup of hemlock. Demosthenes, known for his philippics, made a similar speech against the Macedonian king Philip II, when he still gained power over Athens. The search for truth and loyalty to it is a

to the spiritual strength of a person, his moral fortitude. In Russian rhetoric, M. V. Lomonosov placed the defense of scientific truth above all else.

But even in classical rhetoric the need for flexible solutions to the “truth - lie” dilemma was recognized, for example: maintaining military secrets, hiding some terrible secret out of compassion, “white lie.”

Sad experience history indicates that for entire nations there is a voluntary or forced need for lies, officially presented as the truth (totalitarian regimes).

Psychological nature Such a general, mass lie has not yet received a strict scientific assessment, and its moral assessment is sharply negative. But it can definitely be said that this phenomenon, so frequent in the history of power, has nothing to do with rhetoric in general, much less with the ancient rhetorical ideal. Classical rhetoric, represented by its creators and ideologists, has always opposed lies.

The characteristics discussed above can be classified into the categories of ethos and pathos. Now let us turn to the understanding of logos.

In this area, the tradition did not oppose sophistic norms - neither in the recognition and use of logical laws and rules, nor in the enormous attention to dialogue, to discursive Speech, nor in the skill of choosing various means of language. Nevertheless, we note the most important.

At a lot of attention to the logic of the text, however, advantage was given to the structure of linguistic forms, the accuracy of the choice of words, the use expressive means language, speech culture.

Culture of dialogue, mastery of argument (without any tricks)

p at ^ ^ axis with literature as an art, with poetry as a literary discipline; The best example of this is Cicero.

Linguistic disciplines were widely involved, already p 0
received in the 4th-3rd centuries. BC e. significant development: styles*
grammar, prosody, rudiments of speech theory. A "

The culture of speech and expression of thought were brought to the highest perfection. European connoisseurs of linguistic mastery (Boileau, Schiller, Pushkin and many others) were delighted with the sound of ancient Greek and Latin. Until now, the Latin of the times of Cicero and Seneca (Lucius Annaeus Seneca, 4 BC - 65 AD, author of “Moral Letters to Lucilius”) is considered a model of linguistic culture. There are known estimates in which

It was impossible to further improve Latin after the 1st century.

10. Old Russian traditions

Modern science has a small but sufficient number of sources for the study of the ancient Russian rhetorical ideal, mainly monuments of the 11th-12th centuries. and the beginning of the 13th century. In understanding its originality, researchers rely on both folklore materials and works of fiction, first of all, on “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, and finally, on the chronicle.

These examples allow us to speak about the stability of traditions, reflections of which are still felt today, despite the three-century loss of independence of Rus' and the irreparable delay in cultural development.

Rus' X-XII centuries. had direct connections with Byzantium - the heir of Greek ancient culture - before its conquest Ottoman Empire in the middle of the 15th century. She maintained strong ties with European countries that adopted the culture of the Roman Empire. Connections were strengthened by family unions: for example, one of the daughters of Yaroslav the Wise (he knew eight languages, was nicknamed Os- momyslom, which means “eight thoughts”) was married to the king of Norway, the other, Anna, was the queen of France (turned out to be the first educated queen).

The study of ancient Russian eloquence and its traditions in the 19th century was carried out by A.S. Shishkov, A.V. Meshchersky, S.N. Glinka. N. F. Koshansky, K. P. Zelenetsky, F. I. Buslaev and others. In the 20th century. " mainly L.K. Graudina, G.L. Miskevich, V.I. Annu* 11 "kin, A.K. Mikhalskaya.

It should be admitted, however, that the history of rhetoric has been studied little,” this was noted by the largest thinker in Russia of the 20th century, an expert on rhetoric, Alexei Fedorovich Losev.

Specific works of ancient Russian eloquence are discussed in Chapter 4 - “Rhetoric in Russia.” Let us now characterize its features.

The speaker, as a rule, is a well-known person, invested with trust - a church leader, a prince, a governor. Often he is, as it were, a shadow, remains nameless. The speaker’s emotions control his convictions. Competence and knowledge are valued above all, like language - bright, flowery, “decorated”, without any originality.

2 The speaker always expresses a strong position - this is an advantage
but state interests, concern for the church and people. In speeches

STB always contains a teaching or a call, moral statements, a positive example predominates; criticism is introduced in the form of regret or even crying.

3 The speaker defends the truth, his understanding of justice;
Disputes and polemics are rare.

4. Great attention is paid to communication ethics: tracing
There is high respect for the person giving the speech. By
opinion of the people, the speaker should carry his word high, not about
give a speech to anyone, but only to an authoritative audience.
The very handling of speech expresses the speaker’s respect for the service.
Chatels. Judging by the texts that have reached us, the speaker respects me
information about the addressee. In turn, the people express respect not only
to the personality of the speaker, but also to the word itself, wise and beautiful.

The speaker strives for mutual understanding, thinks in the spirit of conciliarity as the complete unity of all listeners and the people as a whole.

5. The speaker carefully prepares for the speech: the fact itself is preserved
misunderstanding of speeches, their repeated copying indicates their
values. One can, of course, assume that the performances
which culture, not different high quality, not before us
we've arrived. But if so, then we can assume that in the environment the image
bathroom people - custodians of manuscripts - the level of requirements was
high

6. The composition of speeches, messages, teachings differs clearly
clarity, clarity. Here is Metropolitan Hilarion giving a speech at
GOORE of Yaroslav the Wise (“The Word of Law and Grace”), he is about
reveals the Grand Duke Vladimir and the Russian land, about which
known and heard in all corners of the earth. “Rise up, oh honorable head,
^from his grave!<...>Look at your grandchildren and great-grandchildren!

Look at the city, consecrated with icons of saints!<...>

3 Rejoice and be glad and praise God!” The pathos of the Metropolitan's speech

that - in a call for the unity of Rus', the strengthening of princely power

> Establishing the independence of both the state and the Church.

For eche is generously decorated with appeals, exclamations, anti-

sch"Pa R allelisms and other figures. It is rich in allegorical

with TV Mi > allegorical. The thought is clear, nothing superfluous, highly sensitive

h e Measures. According to the speaker, unity will happen not only

p Ovo 3 STRONG The state, but also through language, through the Christian mi-

3 Rhene. This is how the beautiful Russian land was glorified.

7. In the speeches of ancient orators, one is captivated by kindness, meekness and zeal, gratitude, admiration for the beauty of the world, the faith in the nature of a wise and beautiful word, the power and beauty of eloquence, and a high respect for ancient wisdom, teaching, and education.

The genre diversity of these speeches by Leniy is also highly appreciated: oratorical speeches, addresses of the prince to the soldiers, lives of saints, teachings, letters, historical narratives.

Oratorical works Ancient Rus' very closely connected with folklore and literature. They seem to grow from one source. “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was created for oral use. fullness. Like other works of the heroic epic, it is replete with appeals, as if a conversation with the listeners. Many other works are the same - the spiritual verse “Bo. rice and Gleb", "The Tale of Evpatiy Kolovrat", "Zadonshchina". Even in the XIII-XV centuries. literary works they still preserved the oral tradition: “The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land”, “The Life of Sergius of Radonezh”.

In this regard, it is impossible not to note the significance, including didactic, of such a concept as rhetorical ideal. This is “a general pattern, an ideal of speech behavior that must be followed.” The rhetorical ideal corresponds “in its main features general ideas about the beautiful... that has developed historically in a given culture” (according to A.K. Michalskaya).

The category of rhetorical ideal allows us to consider rhetoric and rhetorical knowledge not only as a way of mastering speech, not only as a way of solving communicative speech problems, but also as a way of understanding phenomena of a higher level - the value system of a certain culture, its general aesthetic and ethical ideals.

In other words, rhetoric in this understanding becomes a means of understanding reality, its improvement through the harmonization of relationships in the process of communication, as well as a means of personal self-improvement.

Each culture develops special and well-defined ideas about how verbal communication should occur. People, joining a culture, “entering” it, receive as one of its components a certain general model - an ideal of speech behavior that needs to be followed, and an idea of what a “good” speech work should look like - oral speech or written text. This ideal example of speech behavior and speech work corresponds in its main features to the general ideas of beauty - the general aesthetic and ethical (moral) ideals that have developed historically in a given culture.

So, the rhetorical ideal is a system of the most general requirements for speech and speech behavior, historically developed in a particular culture and reflecting the system of its values - aesthetic and ethical (moral).

This means that in the minds of every person – a bearer of a certain culture – there exists and operates a certain system of values and expectations about how verbal communication should occur in a given situation, “what is good and what is bad” in speech and speech behavior. This system is not accidental, but natural and historically conditioned. Therefore, the history of rhetoric can be “told” (and studied) precisely as the history of rhetorical ideals that emerged, established, and replaced each other.

The rhetoric of the sophists: 1) manipulative, monological - “to use a catchphrase, to amaze listeners with unexpected metaphors and oratorical techniques in general, to arouse anger and indignation both in an individual and in a crowd, and at the same time, with the help of convincing artistry, calm human suffering” ( A. F. Losev);

2) agonal, i.e. the rhetoric of a verbal competition, a dispute aimed necessarily at the victory of one and the defeat of another: “A good speaker is learned in the struggle”;

3) relativistic, i.e. rhetoric of relativity: truth was not the goal of the sophists, but victory: “nothing in the world exists, there is nothing stable, there is no truth, there is only what has been proven.”

Thus, the rhetorical ideal of the Sophists: external form (instead of internal meaning), opinion more important than truth, pleasure more important than virtue.

Socrates' rhetorical ideal, basically similar to Aristotle's:

dialogical: not manipulating the addressee, but awakening his thoughts;

harmonizing: the main goal is not victory or struggle, but the achievement by the participants of communication of a certain agreement on the meaning, purpose, and results of communication; all parts of speech form a coherent whole;

semantic: the purpose of speech is the search and discovery of truth, which is not an illusion, but is contained in the subject of conversation and can be discovered.

The rhetorical ideal of ancient classics is associated with the general ideal of beauty that has developed in this culture. Its main features, according to Losev: richness (cf. “say what is important”), brevity, clarity and simplicity, cheerfulness and life affirmation (joy from communication, reigning harmony).

Roman period of development of rhetoric. The rhetorical ideal of Cicero is the ideal of a Stoic philosopher: to suppress all passions, to ignore the ugly in the world, to enjoy beauty and not only and not so much truth as form (speech). No “sudden movements”: better measured, the main flow to the best of the decorated word. That is why the period - a rhythmic, harmonized phrase - became the subject of close attention of Cicero as a theorist of rhetoric and the favorite rhetorical figure of Cicero the practitioner, Cicero the orator. For Cicero, harmony in speech, in the word, is the result of the suppression of affects, the triumph of rhythm, and the fundamental ignorance of all extremes and dark sides of life.

For Cicero, the orator is a citizen; for Quintilian, he is primarily a stylist; the addressee of Cicero's speeches is the people at the forum, the listener of Quintilian's speeches is a narrow circle of the enlightened. These differences in rhetorical ideals reflect the essential features of changing times.

The movement of rhetorical ideas and, accordingly, the change in the rhetorical ideal is directed from ancient Greek rhetoric (the Sophists, Plato, Aristotle) - to Roman rhetoric - the art of “speaking well” (ars bene dicendi - Cicero and Quintilian) and to the rhetoric of the Middle Ages - the beginning of the Renaissance - the art of " decoration of speech" (ars ornandi), when the main requirement for speech became not only its external, formal beauty and grace, but also correctness, errorlessness, for "our soul will understand better what needs to be done, the more correct the language is praise the Lord without offending him with mistakes” (as stated in the Decrees of Charlemagne).

In ancient Russian eloquence, two main genres predominate - the didactic, teaching word, the purpose of which is the formation of ideals, the education of the human soul and body - “Teaching” - and the “Word”, which interprets the highest and general topics– spiritual, political, state. There was no custom of public discussion in Rus', so polemical eloquence was expressed in letters and messages intended for copying and distribution.

Old Russian eloquence is born on the basis of the interaction of a developed folk oral tradition and ancient, Byzantine and South Slavic rhetorical models, and presupposes observance of the basic Christian commandments. The requirements for verbal behavior and speech (word) determined the rhetorical ideal of Ancient Rus': talk only with the worthy; listen to your interlocutor; be meek in conversation; verbosity, idle talk, intemperance of language, rudeness are sins; worthy is speech that conveys the truth, but not blasphemy, free from unkind condemnation and empty, malicious abuse; a kind word is always desirable and beneficial, but strongly opposed to flattery and lies (praise should not be excessive and false).

The origins of the Russian speech tradition and the Russian speech ideal go back to antiquity (primarily to the rhetorical ideal of Socrates and Plato, to a certain extent - Aristotle and Cicero), to the ethical traditions of Orthodox Christianity, and partly to the rhetoric of Byzantium.

These speech patterns fully reflect the value system of Russian culture, embodied in the traditional rhetorical ideal.

The ethical and aesthetic pattern of Russian culture implies a special role for the categories of harmony, meekness, humility, peacefulness, non-anger, poise, joy, and is realized in dialogical harmonizing interaction, rhetorical principles of laconicism, calmness, truthfulness, sincerity, benevolence, rhythmic regularity, refusal to shout, slander, gossip, condemnation of one's neighbor. (According to A.K. Michalskaya)

It is this version of rhetorical positions that has received the widest distribution at different historical stages and the deepest theoretical justification. With slight differences in the views of individual authors, this direction unites the largest theorists and speakers, thinkers of the 4th-1st centuries. BC e. - Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero. This theoretical direction also absorbed the traditions of Homeric Greece.

In essence, the ancient Greek oral tradition and the heroic epic already laid the foundation for a maturing rhetorical ideal: in Homer’s poems the orators Menelaus and Odysseus are presented, the texts of their speeches are given, the power of their influence on people at decisive moments of the struggle is shown, as well as the most important thing - the choice of tragic and heroic moments in the lives of the heroes, the vividness of the description of events, the most complex construction of plots and the choice of linguistic means. Let us remind the reader that the Iliad and the Odyssey lived in people's memory for a long time and were transmitted orally.

The origins of this rhetorical movement, called ancient, are associated with the name of Homer (VI century BC), who was blind, but saw the distance of times better than the sighted.

centuries, and the Renaissance, and even our contradictory tragic era.

Let's look at these positions.

In classical rhetoric, Aristotle developed a strict theory of speech mentality, speech ethics of an entire people, large social groups and the value orientations operating in them. The speaker focuses on a strong personality. These communication norms guide not only the speaker, but also both sides of linguistic contact, creating an atmosphere of mutual respect. Both parties are interested in a fruitful contact; the listener develops a certain expectation, anticipation, as well as a fear of misunderstanding, disagreement, and disharmony of communication.

These nuances are very subtle, sometimes difficult to detect, but they are the most valuable in communication. It should be noted here that at this level of communication the role of the subtlest shades of choice of words and turns of speech, intonation, and timbre of voice is very high. This is the highest spiritual level of communication in any situation - from oratory to intimate communication with loved ones.

The first feature of the ancient ideal is the attitude towards truth, speakers who belonged to this type of ethical practice confirmed the firmness of their convictions, their __ not 0TST fall from their hard-won understanding

to the spiritual strength of a person, his moral fortitude. In Russian rhetoric, M. V. Lomonosov placed the defense of scientific truth above all else.

But even in classical rhetoric the need for flexible solutions to the “truth-lie” dilemma was recognized, for example: maintaining a military secret, hiding some terrible secret out of compassion, “white lies.”

The sad experience of history indicates that for entire nations there is a voluntary or forced need for lies, officially presented as the truth (totalitarian regimes).

The psychological nature of such a universal, mass lie has not yet received a strict scientific assessment, and its moral assessment is sharply negative. But it can definitely be said that this phenomenon, so frequent in the history of power, has nothing to do with rhetoric in general, much less with the ancient rhetorical ideal. Classical rhetoric, represented by its creators and ideologists, has always opposed lies.

The characteristics discussed above can be classified into the categories of ethos and pathos. Now let us turn to the understanding of logos.

In this area, the tradition did not oppose sophistic norms - neither in the recognition and use of logical laws and rules, nor in the great attention to dialogue, to discursive Speech, nor in the skill of choosing various means of language. Nevertheless, we note the most important.

With great attention to the logic of the text, advantage was still given to the structure of linguistic forms, the accuracy of the choice of words, the use of expressive means of language, and the culture of speech.

Culture of dialogue, mastery of argument (without any tricks)

achieved the most high level in the literary heritage of the aton: this refers to his dialogues (he used the dialogue “G Jean R”) “Phaedrus”, “Apology of Socrates”, “Lysias”, “Sophist”,

1C £UDarstvo”, etc.

p § l The quality of rhetoricians and orators of the direction under consideration is ^aligned with literature as an art and with poetics as a lite

p at ^ ^ axis with literature as an art, with poetry as a literary discipline; The best example of this is Cicero.

Linguistic disciplines, already at their best in the 4th-3rd centuries, were widely used. BC e. significant development: stylistics* grammar, prosody, rudiments of speech theory. A "

It was impossible to further improve Latin after the 1st century.

10. Old Russian traditions

These examples allow us to speak about the sustainability of traditions, reflections of which are still felt today, despite the three-century loss of independence of Rus' and the irreparable delay in cultural development.

Rus' X-XII centuries. had direct ties with Byzantium - the heir of Greek ancient culture - until its conquest by the Ottoman Empire in the middle of the 15th century. She maintained strong ties with European countries that adopted the culture of the Roman Empire. Connections were strengthened by family unions: for example, one of the daughters of Yaroslav the Wise (he knew eight languages, was nicknamed Os- momyslom, which means “eight thoughts”) was married to the king of Norway, the other, Anna, was the queen of France (turned out to be the first educated queen).

Specific works of ancient Russian eloquence are discussed in Chapter 4 - “Rhetoric in Russia.” Let us now characterize its features.

2 The speaker always expresses a firm position - these are predominantly state interests, concern for the church and people. In speeches

STB always contains a teaching or a call, moral statements, a positive example predominates; criticism is introduced in the form of regret or even crying.

3 The speaker defends the truth, his understanding of justice; Disputes and polemics are rare.

4. Great attention is paid to the ethics of communication: there is high respect for the person making the speech. According to the people, a speaker should carry his word high, and should not address his speech to anyone, but only to an authoritative audience. The very handling of speech expresses the speaker’s respect for the listeners. Judging by the texts that have come down to us, the speaker respects the opinion of the addressee. In turn, the people express respect not only for the personality of the speaker, but also for the word itself, wise and beautiful.

The speaker strives for mutual understanding, thinks in the spirit of conciliarity as the complete unity of all listeners and the people as a whole.

The speaker carefully prepares for his speech: the very fact of preserving speeches and copying them multiple times testifies to their value. One can, of course, assume that performances of low culture, not of high quality, have not reached us. But if so, then we can assume that among educated people - the keepers of manuscripts - the level of demands was high.

The composition of speeches, messages, teachings is distinguished by precision and clarity. Here Metropolitan Hilarion gives a speech at the Council of Yaroslav the Wise (“The Word of Law and Grace”), he reveals the Grand Duke Vladimir and the Russian land, which is known and heard in all corners of the earth. “Rise, O honorable head, from your grave!<...>Look at your grandchildren and great-grandchildren!