CC BY
17
UDC 808
DOI 10.24147/2413-6182.2021.8(4).659-670
ISSN 2413-6182 eISSN 2658-4867
FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY AND FORENSIC ORATORY
G.G. Khazagerov1, A.A. Bondareva2
Southern Federal University (Rostov-on-Don, Russia)
Abstract: The Judicial Reform of 1864 was a turning point in the life of Russian society. It introduced the system of jury courts and established the profession of an attorney. First forensic orators were heavily influenced by Russian literary realism with its psychologism, representation of personality in its development, and description of milieu (environment). In this article, we analyse F. Dostoevsky's views on forensic oratory and system of jury courts. Mikhail Bakhtin in his work Problems of Dostoevsky 's Poetics introduced the idea of polyphony, which he perceived as the highest expression of dialogism. But, as our analysis shows, dialogue in Dostoevsky's novels turns to be the duality: voices of his characters are the product of author's monological idea, and they respond to author's inner speech. Social dialogue in Dostoevsky's novels is substituted by inner speech, which leaves no place for an independent interlocutor, who has free will and his own psychological experience. In the context of Soviet culture, Dostoevsky's texts were, undoubtedly, dialogical. But in the context of Russia of the second half of the 19th century, his views on the judicial system, his negative attitude to social dialogue and judicial polemics were destructive to the Russian democratic institutions.
Key words: Bakhtin, Dostoevsky, dialogue, polyphony, communication, duality, forensic rhetoric.
For citation:
Khazagerov, G.G., Bondareva, A.A. (2021), Fyodor Dostoevsky and forensic oratory. Communication Studies (Russia), Vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 659-670. DOI: 10.24147/2413-6182.2021.8(4).659-670.
About the authors:
1 Khazagerov, Georgii Georgiyevich, Prof., Professor of the Department of Russian Language, Member of The British Association for Slavonic and East European Studies (BASEES)
2 Bondareva, Anna Aleksandrovna, PhD student of the Institute of Philology, Journalism, and Intercultural Communication
Corresponding authors:
12 Postal address: 93, Universitetskii per., Rostov-on-Don, 344006, Russia
© r.r. Хазагероe, A.A. EoHdapeea, 2021
1 E-mail: [email protected]
2 E-mail: [email protected] Received: July 14, 2021
Revised: July 29, 2021 Accepted: November 8, 2021
The late and slow development of the polemical forms of rhetoric has always been the Achilles heel of the Russian culture, which more than once displayed a tendency towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism and experienced the longest period of propaganda in contemporary history. In this regard, it is of particular interest to investigate the attitude of Fyodor Dosto-evsky, an authoritative Russian writer, to judicial polemics and social dialogue. This attitude we consider to be counterproductive to the development of Russian democratic institutions.
1. Russian Forensic Eloquence and Russian Literature: The Story of Unrequited Love
It is generally agreed that epideictic eloquence appeared earlier than judicial and deliberative [Rosenfiled 1980]. In archaic societies, epideictic discourse formed a ritualized and formalized communicative environment, where forms of "civic oratory", not yet completely developed, were subordinate [Walker 2000: 13-16]. Much later, with the development of democratic institutions such as court and city councils, polemical forms of dialogue became necessary and significant.
Russian forensic oratory started to develop rapidly after the Judicial Reform of 1864. According to Anatoly Koni, a prominent lawyer and contemporary of the reform, the changes that started in 1861 with the abolition of serfdom could not but affect the court system - "a sorrowful monument of injustice and lawlessness" [Koni 1914: 2]. In 1864 emerged the so-called "judicial republic" [Kazantsev 1991] - the system of jury courts and the profession of an attorney (attorneys were supposed to make pleadings in court adversarial] [Vas'kovskii 1893: 216]. These events became the turning point in the life of Russian society. The judicial orators immediately became significant public figures, and their position remained the same up to the moment the Bolsheviks came to power.
Finding themselves in the position of pioneers, first forensic orators relied on the experience of Western rhetoric, mainly French. In the second half of the 19th c., especially in the 1860-1870s, speeches of French attorneys were published in newspapers, journals, and anthologies [Chalkhush'yan 1891: 5]. But even the greater impact on orators was made by Russian literary realism. By that time, literature and literary criticism had become the main, if not the only, arena of public dialogue. As for Russian culture in general, that time is traditionally characterized as a period of literature-centrism. The 19th c. also witnessed
a great boom in journal literary criticism [Kondakov 2008], which had supposedly become one of the stimuli for the reflection, necessary for the development of polemical forms of rhetoric. Many forensic orators published their works in literary journals and, as acknowledged by contemporaries, managed to "take an honourable place in the cultural life of society" [Vas'kovskii 1893: 336].
When portraying defendants and victims, forensic orators used the favourite devices of Russian writers: psychologism, representation of personality in its development, detailed description of milieu (environment). Some court speeches contained references to the works by Alexander Pushkin, Nikolai Gogol, Ivan Goncharov, and Fyodor Dostoevsky.
But the love of Russian forensic orators for literature was an unrequited one. Such writers as Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky met the new civil institution with considerable mistrust, as they viewed it as a vicious phenomenon able to damage morality and lead to the oblivion of human.
L. Tolstoy was very negative about jury courts and the judiciary system in general. He perceived them as a form of "resistance to evil" and violation of the Commandment "Do not judge, and you will not be judges" [Tolstoi 1957]. It is a known fact that in 1866 L. Tolstoy delivered a speech in the defence of common soldier Vasily Shabunin. The speech had no success, and the defendant was sentenced to be shot. At the end of life, in his correspondence with Pavel Biryukov, Tolstoy expressed his deep regret about citing "some stupid words written by somebody else called laws" [Biryukov 1921: 111].
The theme of court and trial is a central theme of Tolstoy's novel Resurrection. The way Tolstoy arranges the narration reveals that the hearings are held en passant. The description of the trial is frequently interrupted by the passages about the thoughts and feelings of the trial participants. The officials are focused on their problems: the judge wants the hearing to end as soon as possible, so he could have a smoke and dine. The jury judge superficially. They feel their mission to be a burden, though, as Tolstoy writes, "their faces all had a certain look of satisfaction at the prospect of fulfilling a public duty" [Tolstoi 1900: 30]. The decision on human's destiny turns into a tiresome duty, one desperately wants to fulfil as quickly as possible. In the description of the hearings, Tolstoy uses his favourite technique of defamiliarization (ostranenie] to repudiate the institution. The term ostranenie was first introduced by Victor Shklovsky [Shklovskii 1929]. For Shklovsky, it was a literary technique: taken out of familiar context, a word unleashes its aesthetic potential. But for Tolstoy, it was a rhetorical technique that allowed to appeal to common sense and make a naive reader perceive an event with elements of the convention (e.g. a court trial, a church service, a theatrical performance or an attack with a banner] as something strange.
F. Dostoevsky closely followed the progress of the Judicial Reform of 1864. Even though he was sometimes satisfied with sentences [Dostoevskaya 2015: 168], his attitude to jury courts was negative. From the viewpoint of Dosto-
evsky, acquittals and speeches of attorneys poured the "disbelief in the people's truth, in God's truth" into peoples' souls and deprived the defendants of the opportunity to expiate the crime with suffering [Dostoevskii 1980: 19]. In fact, both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky viewed courts the same way as Russian folklore did. The folklore stored the memory of times when common people could not influence the outcome of the court hearings. Compare it with the following: "Both the motives and the form of Dostoevsky's reproaches are at the same level as critical statements traditionally made against attorneys" [Gol'den-veizer 2016: 61].
Russian proverbs represent a negative image of courts. They say: "Where there is court, there is falsehood" or "A law is like a cart shaft: it goes where you turn it" [Mokienko 2010]. At the beginning of the 2000s, this issue was investigated by the Institute of National Models of Economy. It was discovered that there was a significant difference in the ways Russian and Western European folklore viewed courts and trials [Khazagerov 1999b]. In Constants. Dictionary of Russian Culture by academician Yuri Stepanov, we find the following description of the concept of "law" in Russian culture: "...'law' is conceived, first of all, as a 'limit', beyond which lies another sphere of life and spirit. Thus, the 'law' is not the highest 'category' that dominates everything in the sphere, but just some sort of a border inside a larger sphere. View 'from the outside' of this limit, desire to 'look from that side', noncompliance with the limit (not necessarily 'criminal'] - these are the main features of this Russian cultural concept" [Stepanov 1997: 428]. And further: "...written law can be confronted by the 'law of conscience', 'charismatic individual' or pity on 'the poor'" [Stepanov 1997: 428].
Furthermore, the above-mentioned Christian truth "Do not judge, and you will not be judged" warned against the civil court. In Russian Orthodoxy, as noted by academician Sergey Averintsev, the world is bipolar, and the earthly is opposed to celestial. The middle zone of interpersonal relations was not elaborated, neither was the domain of laws and contracts. This peculiarity, continues S. Averentsev, was tangible even in the 20 th c. The contract has always provoked suspicion and looked like a collusion. The covenant was made only with God, but not with litigators: "When Russian people read old Catholic books on moral theology, they soon become astonished by the highly detailed description of the limits of individual rights for personal secrets, which can't be revealed on pain of sin, and by other enclosures around the territory of the existence of an individual, along with the frequent mentioning of one of the most important and common (but not for the sacred texts] word 'agreement'" [Aver-intsev 1996: 326].
Of course, not all writers shared these views. Infinitely far from the folklore approach was Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin and Anton Chekhov. Depicting contemporary court in a satirical manner, they didn't criticize the institution. On the contrary, they disapproved of the folklore thinking, which they believed to be retrograde and inconsistent, but not wise.
2. Dostoevsky's Attitude to Court
As we've already mentioned, Dostoevsky didn't recognize the importance of the court as a social institution. He believed it to be deficient and thoroughly different from the divine trial. With characteristic maximalism, he hotly denied the court as such. Dostoevsky approved only the inner trial, the repentance.
Very illustrative in this sense is an episode from A Raw Youth novel, where Makar Dolgoruky tells a story about the soldier, who robbed a man and confessed to the crime. Through the efforts of the attorney, the soldier was declared not guilty by the jury. But after release from prison, the soldier hanged himself. Finishing the story, Dolgoruky says: "That's what it is to live with sin on the soul" [Dostoevskii 1975: 310].
The idea that inner trial is superior to "mechanical" trial is also manifested in the novel The Karamazov Brothers. The Elder Zosima, whom Eleazar Meletinsky characterized as "the highest expression of ecclesiasticism" and "centre of fair justice" [Meletinskii 2001: 174], views the "recognition of sin by conscience" as the only true punishment [Dostoevskii 1976: 59]. From the viewpoint of Dostoevsky, the release from the burden of the deed can be achieved only after the imposition of punishment, and it is exactly what the judicial system, too concentrated on the milieu theory, could not provide.
In A Writer's Diary (1873], the issues of milieu (environment) were discussed in a separate article [Dostoevskii 1980]. Dostoevsky strongly criticized the widely spread practice of jury courts to approach a crime as an effect of the negative influence of the adverse milieu on a defendant Dostoyevsky believed this view to be profoundly humiliating and inconsistent with Christianity, which "places a moral duty on the individual to struggle with the environment" [Dostoevskii 1980: 16].
Attorneys were unfavourably depicted by Dostoevsky in prose, letters and A Writer's Diary. He persistently called them the "conscience for hire" (e.g. [Dostoevskii 1975]]. His statements about specific cases, for example, the Case of Sarra Modebadze, were remarkably prejudiced as Dostoevsky regarded neither arguments nor facts [Dostoevskii 1988: 58-59]. Forensic speeches and eloquence, in general, are associated in his texts with idle, senseless talks. A court turns into a place where one can "make a scandal" and "make a speech" [Dostoevskii 1974: 250, 512] but not ascertain the truth.
Dostoyevsky caricatured forensic eloquence in The Karamazov Brothers. Fetyukovich, who had real-life models (Vladimir Spasovich and Petr Alexan-drov] [Grossman 2015: 39], is ridiculous because he tries to appeal to morality and Christian truth. The defence attorney tries to behave like a writer, an unselfish defender of moral principles and an advocatus Dei. "Conscience for hire" appeals to the real one, and that is absurd.
It should be noted that Fetyukovich's speech may be viewed as Dosto-evsky's self-parody. Instead of dodgy logic, which Dostoevsky tries to ridicule, the attorney reveals double personality. With an incredible speed, unusual for
forensic eloquence, his thoughts rush between pro et contra. It creates an impression of a fast exchange of utterances between a mentally ill person and their double. It has very little in common with sermocination as "a form of prosopopoeia in which speaker answers the remarks or questions of a pretended interlocutor" [Lanham 1968: 92].
In forensic speeches of Dostoyevsky's contemporaries, such rhetorical devices as sermocination and hypophora ("raising questions and answering them" [Lanham 1968: 57]] functioned mainly as elements, which organized the structure of speech. They were used to introduce the new aspect of a topic, provide a detailed answer and anticipate objections and counterarguments. They were used this way, for example, by A. Koni in his speech delivered in 1872 during the hearings of the case of the peasant woman Emelyanova, drowned by her spouse [Koni 2000]. Sermocinations and hypophoras in Fetyulovich's speech are haphazardly arranged, and, as a result, the whole speech seems to be a little chaotic. Some of its fragments are just accumulations of questions that remain unanswered. It creates the effect of double personality, which has nothing in common with a dialogue.
3. The Secret of Polyphony
How does Dostoevsky's rigidity agree with polyphony, which Bakhtin believed to be the highest expression of dialogism? According to Mikhail Bakhtin [Bakhtin 2017] (and it has nearly become a commonplace]1, Dostoevsky was so unbiased that he hid his opinion behind the multiplicity of voices. He "speaks not about a character, but with him" [Bakhtin 2017: 66]; he represents someone else's idea but doesn't unite it with the idea of his own; he preserves a distance that lets his characters not become "the mouth-piece for his voice" and not to "color the work with the personal ideological tone of the author" [Bakhtin 2017: 77, 57, 84].
Here we would like to point up Bakhtin's observation on the language of Dostoevsky - the frequent usage of the word "suddenly" in his novels [Bakhtin 2017: 281-282]. Plots in Dostoevsky's works are subordinate to the logic of the dialogues. These dialogues are obviously prior to the natural flow of life. In Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, Bakhtin writes that even though the idea of the author has no tangible expression, it guides the choice and arrangement of the voices [Bakhtin 2017: 85]. To confront the opinion, the author reorganizes life, turns to its most marginalized sides and makes his characters speak on the topics he needs. If we are in the tavern where Rodion Raskolnikov "suddenly" finds himself, we don't hear the noise and hustle of the tavern. Instead, we are immersed deeper into the context of intellectual debate, around which the
1 There are numerous works in the field of literary theory and discourse studies devoted to the analysis of Bakhtin's concept of polyphony. See: [Farmer 1998; Zappen 2004; Jones 1990; Holquist 1990]. There are also works with a critical approach: for instance, N. Reed expressed the idea that a polyphonic novel, described by Bakhtin, is a dialogue with oneself, a talk that takes place in author's mind. See: [Reed 1994].
whole novel is built. We immediately encounter Semyon Marmeladov, who has already been waiting for us with a monologue within the context of Raskol-nikov's thoughts and dreams. Dostoevsky admitted that his novels started from the arguing voices he heard in his head.
What are these voices? They all were born within the monological idea of the author, and they do not extend beyond its limits. These voices are not the voices of life as in the works by Guy de Maupassant or Anton Chekhov. They are responses to the inner thought of the author. It's very similar to the external representation of inner speech. It is duality - the well-known recurrent theme of Dostoevsky's works [Chizhevskii 2007].
Do Dostoevsky's characters hear each other? As Bakhtin showed, they do work with the "word of the Other", reiterate it and repeat in various ways. It is somewhat similar to the so-called children's egocentric speech as described by Lev Vygotsky: children stay not with each other but near each other [Vygotskii 1996]. This is exactly the way Ivan the Terrible behaved in correspondence with Andrey Kurbsky, but it's hardly possible to suspect him of using polyphony [Likhachev 1979]. For the tsar, Kurbsky didn't exist as an independent individual, and the tsar would have brutally executed him if he had an occasion. Reviling Kurbsky and showing no willingness for direct dialogue, Ivan the Terrible answered his own thoughts, just building on Kurbsky's words (no dialogue was intended].
According to Bakhtin, the highest degree of dialogical tension is achieved by constant consideration of "alien discourse" [Bakhtin 2017: 127]. But in most cases described by Bakhtin, the "alien discourse" turns out to be a mere construct: characters, whether Makar Devushkin or Yakov Golyadkin or delirious Ivan Karamazov, who speaks with the devil, answer to their thoughts. Dialogue with an "alien" turns out to be a reflection of deep inner conflict and confrontation of two sides of personality, but not polemics of two characters.
Dostoevsky's characters build on the words of each other. These words revert to inner speech, which stimulated the initial interest. Polyphony turns to be monologism and extreme partiality. During a real court trial, participants have to deal with other people, independent of their will and fantasy. That is why forensic eloquence is adversarial and polemic and is infinitely far from the sermon (of course, if we don't take into account the show trials held during the Stalin era because they were orchestrated].
Sermon belongs to the epideictic eloquence. Thus, it doesn't imply objections and unexpected counter-remarks (nobody knows what exactly will draw the attention of the opponent]. Sermon dissolves the opponent themself. Bertold of Regensburg included in his sermons typical characters from his audience [Gurevich 1990]. By the beginning of the sermon, there are no potential participants of the dialogue: people's thoughts are processed and absorbed along with their free will partially by the situation of a sermon itself In such circumstances, people become characters of a novel or orchestrated Plato's dialogues. In fact, they are not people - they are ghosts, who can't surprise the
author. When Alexander Pushkin jokingly complaint that Tatiana unexpectedly got married [Gusev 1970: 200], he was not really joking. Pushkin followed the logic of life, and he didn't have an idée fixe. Undoubtedly, all authors introduce the characters, who match their intentions, but at the same time, they overcome the resistance of the material. Presumption of life stands in the way of partiality. It's perfectly evident from L. Tolstoy's literary works. Tolstoy defended his ideas and sometimes directly expressed them, but there were no suddenlies in his novels, the life was logically going from cause to effect. It is no coincidence that, according to the plot typology, Tolstoy's plots are chronicalised, while Dosto-evsky's plots are concentric [Pospelov 1988].
Bakhtin's polyphony is an illusion, but the comprehensible and fruitful one. Duality is a protodialogue, and there's no social component in it yet. Still, it's both psychological and dramatic. It contains the models of dialogues that are later implemented in real social life. In Ancient Russian literature, duality was the first step towards freedom from monologic sermons and teachings [Khazagerov 2017: 353]. In the 1970s Soviet literature, the new wave of duality (especially in the works by Vladimir Vysotsky] was a commencement of liberation from Soviet epideictism [Khazagerov 1999a].
It is well-known that Mikhail Bakhtin didn't like rhetoric. In his notes, he wrote that in rhetoric there are always absolutely right and wrong sides, sure winners and sure losers [Bakhtin 1986: 527], that it aims to provoke the feeling of fear or hope [Bakhtin 1996: 63]. Bakhtin noticed only sermon and teaching in rhetoric, i.e. just epideictism. It should be mentioned that, in the time of Bakhtin, Soviet rhetoric was truly a sermon as it consisted of propaganda of Soviet ideology. Bakhtin accepted only one type of rhetoric - a parody on rhetoric, i.e., carnival [Bakhtin 2015]. The real satire couldn't exist in Soviet times, but the "carnival" and travesty of ideology were acceptable to some extent. Thus, Bakhtin's aspire to find a way from monologue to dialogue is understandable.
In the context of Soviet culture, Dostoevsky is dialogical: in contrast with Soviet propaganda, his sermon is very sensitive to psychological experience. Moreover, the ideas he defended were rebellious. But in the second half of the 19th c., in Russia that had already started to build democratic institutions, Dostoevsky's anti-institutionalism called back to the past.
Conclusions
The emergence of the jury court system in Russian in the second half of the 19th c. ushered in a new era of Russian forensic eloquence, which later had a great impact on the development of Russian society and Russian parliamentarism in particular.
Among those who didn't accept the jury courts as a new democratic institution was F. Dostoevsky, one of the most famous Russian writers. He advocated old views on trial, and these views, in fact, were of folklore origin. Dostoevsky pinned all his hopes not on forensic competition but on a sermon, e.g., on a monological genre which in the 20th c. degenerated into political propaganda.
The analysis of the satirical image of forensic speech in The Karamazov Brothers shows that Dostoevsky saw in the figure of the judicial orator (the "conscience for hire"] only the ridiculous pretensions to being a preacher. According to his views, not the dialogue between two sides but an impartial preacher who asserts the truths he already knows can resolve an issue.
Dostoevsky's attitude to dialogue is masked by Mikhail Bakhtin's theory, which describes Dostoevsky's literary works as the highest degree of dialogue -polyphony. But, according to Bakhtin, dialogism is connected not only with the social but also psychological sphere. Being a kind of duality, polyphony picks the "alien words" that match one of the sides of the double and uses them in inner speech. "I and the Other" is a double interaction, which corresponds with pro et contra in the soul of a double.
Dostoevsky's dialogues are like mosaics. They form his sermon-like novels with the foregone conclusions and answers to the question that torment his characters. His works are truly unique and groundbreaking as the writer managed to create a whole new type of novel (and this is what drew Bakhtin's attention]. But the imperceptible substitution of social dialogue with the inner speech of mentally troubled characters is a trap for the analyst who studies social problems. The denial of judicial rhetoric ignores real interlocutors, who have their own will and relevant psychological experience.
References
Averintsev, S.S. (1996), Khristianskii aristotelizm kak vnutrennyaya forma zapadnoi kul'tury i problemy sovremennoi Rossii [Christian Aristotelianism as a Form of Western Culture and Issues of Modern Russia]. Ritorika i istoki evropeiskoi literaturnoi traditsii [Rhetoric and the Sources of European Literary Tradition], Moscow, Yazyki russkoi kul'tury publ., pp. 319-328. (in Russian). Bakhtin, M.M. (2017), Problemy poetiki Dostoevskogo [Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics], Moscow, E publ., 640 p. (in Russian). Bakhtin, M.M. (2015), Tvorchestvo Fransua Rable i narodnaya kul'tura srednevekov'ya i Renessansa [Rabelais and His World], Moscow, Eksmo publ., 640 p. (in Russian). Bakhtin, M.M. (1996), "Ritorika v meru svoei lzhivosti..." [Rhetoric, to the best of its mendacity...]. Bakhtin, M.M. Complete Works, Vol. 5, Moscow, Russkie slovari publ., pp. 63-70. (in Russian). Bakhtin, M.M. (1986), Critical Essays, Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya literatura publ., 535 p. (in Russian).
Biryukov, P.I. (1921), Leo Tolstoy, Biography, Vol. 2, Berlin, I.P. Ladyzhnikov publ., 675 p. (in Russian).
Chalkhush'yan, G.Kh. (1891), Idealy francuzskoi advokatury [The Ideals of French Advocacy], St. Petersburg, Berman & Rabinovich's publ., 89 p. (in Russian). Chizhevskii, D.I. (2007), K probleme dvoinika [On the Double]. Bem, A.L. (ed.) O Do-
stoevskom [On Dostoevsky], Moscow, Russkii put' publ., 576 p. (in Russian). Dostoevskaya, A.G. (2015), Memoires, Moscow, Berlin, Direkt-Media publ., 462 p. (in Russian).
Dostoevskii, F.M. (1988), Letters 1878-1881. Dostoevskii, F.M. Complete Works, in 30 volumes, Vol. 30 (I), Leningrad, Nauka publ., 454 p. (in Russian).
Dostoevskii, F.M. (1980), Sreda [The Environment]. Dostoevskii, F.M. Complete Works, in 30 volumes, Vol. 21, Leningrad, Nauka publ., pp. 13-23. (in Russian).
Dostoevskii, F.M. (1976), Brat'ya Karamazovy [The Karamazov Brothers], pt. 1-17. Dostoevskii, F.M. Complete Works, in 30 volumes, Vol. 14, Leningrad, Nauka publ., 510 p. (in Russian).
Dostoevskii, F.M. (1975), Podrostok [The Young Youth]. Dostoevskii, F.M. Complete Works, in 30 volumes, Vol. 13, Leningrad, Nauka publ., 451 p. (in Russian).
Dostoevskii, F.M. (1974), Besy [Daemons]. Dostoevskii, F.M. Complete Works, in 30 volumes, Vol. 10, Leningrad, Nauka publ., 518 p. (in Russian).
Farmer, F. (1998), Landmark Essays on Bakhtin, Rhetoric, and Writing, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 290 p. DOI: 10.4324/9781003059233.
Gol'denveizer, A.A. (2016), V zashchitu prava [In Defence of Law], Essays and Speeches, Moscow, Berlin, Direkt-Media publ., 233 p. (in Russian).
Grossman, L.P. (2015), Dostoevskii - reaktsioner [Dostoevsky - reactionary], Moscow, Common Place publ., 140 p. (in Russian).
Gurevich, A.Ya. (1990), Lichnost', prizvanie, bogatstvo i spasenie v propovedi Bertol'da Regensburgskogo [Identity, Mission, Wealth, and Salvation in the Sermons of Bertold of Regensburg]. Srednevekovyi mir: Kul'tura bezmolvstvuyushchego bol'shinstva [Medieval World: the Culture of the Silent Majority], Moscow, Iskusstvo, pp. 178-264. (in Russian).
Gusev, N.N. (1970), L. Tolstoy, Biographical Materials 1881-1885, Moscow, Nauka publ., 559 p. (in Russian).
Holquist, M. (1990), Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World New Accents, London, New York, Taylor & Francis publ., Routledge publ., 224 p.
Jones, M.V. (1990), Dostoyevsky after Bakhtin. Reading in Dostoyevsky's Fantastic Realism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 221 p. DOI: 10.1017/CB09780511519604.
Kazantsev, S.M. (1991), Sudprisyazhnyh v Rossii: Gromkie ugolovnye processy 18641917 [Jury Courts in Russia: Famous Criminal Trials of 1864-1917], Leningrad, Lenizdat publ., 510 p. (in Russian).
Khazagerov, G.G. (2017), Cultivation of Communicative Space: Polemical Eloquence vs. Epideictic Eloquence. Russian Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 348361. DOI: 10.22363/2312-9182-2017-21-2-348-361. (in Russian).
Khazagerov, G.G. (1999a), Poeticheskoe tvorchestvo Vladimira Vysockogo v kontekste Drevnei Rusi i Sovetskoi Rossii [Poetry of Vladimir Vysotsky in the Context of Ancient Russia and Soviet Russia]. Rostovskaya elektronnaya gazeta, No. 29, available at: http://www.relga.ru/Environ/WebObjects/tgu-www.woa/wa/Main? textid=1902&level1=main&level2=articles (accessed: July 12, 2021). (in Russian).
Khazagerov, G.G. (1999b), Vo dni somnenii (prislushivaemsya k svidetel'stvam russko-go yazyka) [In Times of Doubt: Listening for the Russian Language]. Znamya, No. 3, pp. 203-207. (in Russian).
Kondakov, I.V. (2008), Po tu storonu slova. Krizis literaturotsentrizma v Rossii XX-XXI vv. [On the Other Side of the Word. The Crisis of Literary Centrism in the 20-21 c. Russia]. Issues of Literature, No. 5, pp. 5-44. (in Russian).
Koni, A.F. (2000), Selected Works and Speeches, Tula, Avtograf publ., 640 p. (in Russian).
Koni, A.F. (1914), Ottsy i deti sudebnoi reformy [Fathers & Sons of the Judicial Reform], Moscow, I.D. Sytin publ., II + 384 p. (in Russian).
Lanham, R.A. (1968), A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, Berkeley, Los Angeles, University of California Press publ., 148 p.
Likhachev, D.S. (ed.) (1979), Perepiska Ivana Groznogo s Andreem Kurbskim [Correspondence of Tsar Ivan the Terrible with Prince Andrey Kurbsky], Leningrad, Nauka publ., 429 p. (in Russian).
Meletinskii, E.M. (2001), Zametki o tvorchestve Dostoevskogo [Notes on Dostoevsky's Works], Moscow, RSUH publ., 190 p. (in Russian).
Mokienko, V.M. (ed.) (2010), Great Dictionary of Russian Proverbs, Moscow, OLMA Media Grupp publ., 1026 p. (in Russian).
Pospelov, G.N. (ed.) (1988), Vvedenie v literaturovedenie [Introduction to Literary Studies], Moscow, Vysshaya shkola publ., 527 p. (in Russian).
Reed, N. (1994), Reading Lermontov's 'Geroy nashego vremeni': Problems of Poetics and Reception, PhD Dissertation, Harvard University.
Rosenfield, L.W. (1980), The Practical Celebration of Epideictic. White E.E. (ed.) Rhetoric in Transition: Studies in the Nature and Uses of Rhetoric, University Park, Pennsylvania State Press, pp. 131-155.
Shklovskii, V.B. (1929), Iskusstvo kak priem [Art as Technique]. O teorii prozy [On Theory of Prose], Moscow, Federatsiya publ., pp. 7-24. (in Russian).
Stepanov, Yu.S. (1997), Konstanty [Constants], Dictionary of Russian Culture, Moscow, Yazyki russkoi kul'tury publ., 825 p. (in Russian).
Tolstoi, L.N. (1957), V chem moya vera? [What is my Faith?]. Tolstoi, L.N. Complete Works, Vol. 23, Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo khudozhestvennoi litera-tury publ., pp. 304-465. (in Russian).
Tolstoi, L.N. (1900), Voskresenie [Resurrection], St. Petersburg, A.F. Marks publ., 581 p. (in Russian).
Vas'kovskii, E.V. (1893), Organizatsiya advokatury. Ocherk vseobshchei istorii advo-katury [The Structure of Bar Council. Essay on the History of Advocacy], pt. 1-2, St. Petersburg, N.K. Martynov publ., 396 p. (in Russian).
Vygotskii, L.S. (1996) Myshlenie i rech' [Thought and Language], Moscow, Labirint publ., 414 p. (in Russian).
Walker, J. (2000) Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 396 p. (DOI: 10.1017/S0075435800032494.
Zappen, J.P. (2004) The Rebirth of Dialogue. Bakhtin, Socrates, and the Rhetorical Tradition, New York, State University of New York Press, 229 p.
Ф.М. ДОСТОЕВСКИЙ И СУДЕБНОЕ КРАСНОРЕЧИЕ
Г.Г. Хазагеров1, A.A. Бондарева2
:'2 Южный федеральный университет (Ростов-на-Дону, Россия)
Аннотация: Судебная реформа 1864 г., ставшая переломным моментом в жизни русского общества, положила начало институту суда присяжных и сословию адвокатов. Огромное влияние на первых судебных ораторов оказала русская реалистическая литература с ее психологизмом, описанием среды и изображением характеров в развитии. Однако такие влиятельные русские писатели, как Л.Н. Толстой и Ф.М. Достоевский, отнеслись к новому обще-
ственному институту негативно и восприняли его как нечто в корне противное христианской морали. В статье анализируется взгляд на судебное красноречие и суд присяжных Ф.М. Достоевского. М.М. Бахтин в работе «Проблемы поэтики Достоевского» выдвинул идею полифонии, которую рассматривал как высшую степень проявления диалогизма. Однако диалог у Достоевского, как показывает проведенный анализ, оборачивается двой-ничеством: голоса героев оказываются порождением авторской моноидеи и откликаются на внутреннюю речь автора. Даже речь адвоката Фетюковича, героя романа «Братья Карамазовы», превращается в диалог оратора со своим «двойником». Полифония, таким образом, оборачивается монологизмом и сверхтенденциозностью. Общественный диалог в романном творчестве Достоевского подменяется внутренней речью, где не оказывается места для независимого собеседника, обладающего свободной волей и собственными психическими переживаниями. В контексте советской культуры с ее пропагандой Достоевский был диалогичен, однако в контексте второй половины XIX в. подобный взгляд на судебную систему, негативное отношение к судебной полемике и общественному диалогу оказывались по своей сути разрушительными для демократических институтов России.
Ключевые слова: Бахтин, Достоевский, диалогизм, полифония, коммуникация, двойничество, судебная риторика.
Для цитирования:
Хазагеров Г.Г., Бондарева A.A. Ф.М. Достоевский и судебное красноречие // Коммуникативные исследования. 2021. Т. 8. № 4. С. 659-670. DOI: 10.24147/2413-6182.2021.8(4).659-670. (На англ. яз.).
Сведения об авторах:
1 Хазагеров Георгий Георгиевич, доктор филологических наук, профессор, профессор кафедры русского языка, член Британской ассоциации славянских и восточно-европейских исследований (BASEES)
2 Бондарева Анна Александровна, аспирант кафедры русского языка Института филологии, журналистики и межкультурной коммуникации
Контактная информация:
12 Почтовый адрес: 344006, Россия, Ростов-на-Дону, Университетский пер., 93
1 E-mail: [email protected]
2 E-mail: [email protected] Дата поступления статьи: 14.07.2021 Дата рецензирования: 29.07.2021 Дата принятия в печать: 08.11.2021
